Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01385/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01385-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATTHEW JANKOWICZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA SUBSTANCE ABUSE 

TREATMENT FACILITY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-01385-BAM (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR 

FAILURE TO EXHAUST 

ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Matthew Jankowicz (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was initiated 

on September 22, 2023. (ECF No. 1.)

I. Legal Standard

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous 

or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary 

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

///

Case 1:23-cv-01385-KES-BAM Document 9 Filed 09/27/23 Page 1 of 3
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

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, “[n]o action shall be brought with 

respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or 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). Prisoners are required to exhaust the available 

administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007); McKinney 

v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199–1201 (9th Cir. 2002). Exhaustion is required regardless of the 

relief sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the process, Booth v. Churner, 

532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001), and the exhaustion requirement applies to all suits relating to prison 

life, Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516, 532 (2002).

In rare cases where a failure to exhaust is clear from the face of the complaint, it may be 

dismissed for failure to state a claim. See, e.g., Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1169 (9th Cir. 

2014); Medina v. Sacramento Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. 2:16-cv-0765 AC P, 2016 WL 6038181, at 

*3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2016) (“When it is clear from the face of the complaint and any attached 

exhibits that a plaintiff did not exhaust his available administrative remedies before commencing 

an action, the action may be dismissed on screening for failure to state a claim.”); Lucas v. Dir. of 

Dep’t. of Corrs., 2015 WL 1014037, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2015) (relying on Albino and 

dismissing complaint without prejudice on screening due to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies prior to filing suit).

II. Discussion

In the complaint, as to Claim I, Plaintiff has checked the boxes indicating that there are no 

administrative remedies (grievance procedures or administrative appeals available at his 

institution, he did not submit a request for administrative relief on Claim I, and he did not appeal 

his request for relief on Claim I to the highest level.) (ECF No. 1, p. 3.) In explanation, Plaintiff 

writes, “pending.” (Id.) As to Claims II and III, Plaintiff did not check any of the boxes, and 

writes only, “(pending)” as to each claim. (Id. at 4–5.)

Based on the information in the complaint, it appears Plaintiff filed suit prematurely 

without first exhausting his administrative remedies in compliance with the PLRA, section 

1997e(a).

Case 1:23-cv-01385-KES-BAM Document 9 Filed 09/27/23 Page 2 of 3
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

3

III. Order and Recommendation

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign a District Judge to 

this action.

Furthermore, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without 

prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 

(14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 

specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual 

findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 26, 2023 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01385-KES-BAM Document 9 Filed 09/27/23 Page 3 of 3