Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01069/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01069-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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

PERRY WASHINGTON, 

Plaintiff,

v.

FRESNO COUNTY SHERIFF, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01069-NONE-SKO (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST 

ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 

21-DAY DEADLINE

Perry Washington initiated this action on August 5, 2019, while incarcerated at Fresno 

County Jail. (See Doc. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that Fresno County sheriff’s deputies subjected him to 

sexual assault, failed to protect him from abuse, and denied him adequate medical care on July 24 

and 25, 2019, less than two weeks before he filed suit. (See Doc. 19.) Thus, in its screening order, 

the Court informed Plaintiff that he “filed suit prematurely without first exhausting his 

administrative remedies” pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act. (Doc. 13 at 6.)

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 

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

Case 1:19-cv-01069-DAD-SKO Document 22 Filed 03/27/20 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

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). 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). Generally, failure to exhaust is 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 prior to filing suit on August 5, 2019. Thus, in its screening order, the Court instructed 

Plaintiff to file an amended complaint and “explain the status of his exhaustion requirement and 

why this action should not be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust prior to filing 

suit.” (Doc. 13 at 6.)

Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on February 10, 2020 (Doc. 19). Plaintiff attaches

copies of several inmate grievances that he filed while at Fresno County Jail, some of which are 

related to the claims in his complaint, some of which are not, but none of which were filed prior 

to August 5, 2019. (See id. at 8-20.) Plaintiff also does not explain why this action should not be 

dismissed for failure to exhaust.

Accordingly, within 21 days, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing why this action should 

not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing 

suit. Alternatively, Plaintiff may file a notice of voluntary dismissal. Plaintiff is advised that 

failure to timely respond to this order will result in dismissal of this action with prejudice

for failure to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 27, 2020 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01069-DAD-SKO Document 22 Filed 03/27/20 Page 2 of 2