Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01109/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01109-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOE ALFRED TAYLOR, 

Plaintiff,

v.

AYUB HAROUN, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-01109-DAD-JLT (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE 

REMEDIES 

21-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, alleges the defendants unlawfully terminated his participation in 

a prison religious diet program. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff attaches the administrative grievance he filed 

and the responses thereto to his complaint. (Id. at 10-19.) According to these documents, prison 

officials disapproved of Plaintiff’s grievance at the first level of review on September 30, 2020. 

(Id. at 17.) Plaintiff appealed the decision on November 6, 20201, which the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) Office of Appeals rejected as untimely. 

(Id. at 15-19.)

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) provides that “[n]o action shall be brought with 

respect to prison conditions under . . . any other Federal law . . . by a prisoner confined in any jail, 

prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are 

1 According to his proof of service, Plaintiff provided the appeal to prison officials for mailing on 

November 1, 2020. (Doc. 1 at 18.)

Case 1:21-cv-01109-KES-CDB Document 10 Filed 12/06/21 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Exhaustion of administrative remedies is mandatory and 

“unexhausted claims cannot be brought in court.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (citation 

omitted). The exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits relating to prison life, Porter v. 

Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002), regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner or offered by the

administrative process, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001).

Inmates are required to “complete the administrative review process in accordance with 

the applicable procedural rules, including deadlines, as a precondition to bringing suit in federal 

court.” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 88, 93 (2006). In California, state-inmate grievances are 

subject to two levels of review. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3481(a). In general, prisoners must 

receive a disposition from the CDCR Office of Appeals at the second level of review before 

administrative remedies are deemed exhausted. See id. §§ 3483(m)(1), 3486(m); but see id. § 

3483(m)(2). The Office of Appeals may reject an appeal if the prisoner did not submit it within 

30 days of the decision at the first level of review. See id. §§ 3485(b), 3486(e), 3487(a)(1). A 

rejection does not exhaust administrative remedies. Id. § 3486(m).

Failure to exhaust is generally an affirmative defense that the defendant must plead and 

prove. Jones, 549 U.S. at 204, 216. However, courts may dismiss a claim if failure to exhaust is 

clear on the face of the complaint. See Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 2014).

It is clear on the face of his complaint that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative 

remedies. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff, within 21 days of the date of service of this 

order, to show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to exhaust. 

Alternatively, Plaintiff may file a notice of voluntary dismissal. Failure to comply with this order 

will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 4, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

 CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01109-KES-CDB Document 10 Filed 12/06/21 Page 2 of 2