Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00003/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00003-3/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

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

Nicolas Andres Alcala asserts Officers Lewis and Corless violated his civil rights during an 

incident in the Fresno County Jail. (Doc. 1 at 3-4.) While Plaintiff seeks to state claims for the alleged 

violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he admits that he has not filed a grievance or exhausted his 

administrative remedies on the claims raised in this action. (Id. at 2.) 

On April 7, 2016, the Court issued an order for Plaintiff to show cause within thirty days why 

this action should not be dismissed for his failure to exhaust administrative remedies on his claims prior 

to filing suit as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). (Doc. 11.) More than thirty days have passed and 

Plaintiff has not responded in any way. 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides, “[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). Accordingly, the Supreme Court of the United States has 

NICOLAS ANDRES ALCALA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CHRISTOPHER LEWIS, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00003 - JLT

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO 

EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

Case 1:16-cv-00003-JLT Document 12 Filed 05/12/16 Page 1 of 2
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

determined “[t]here is no question that exhaustion is mandatory under the PLRA and that unexhausted 

claims cannot be brought in court.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211, 127 S.Ct. 910 (2007). 

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). However, the failure to exhaust 

may be excused where the administrative remedies are rendered “unavailable,” with the plaintiff 

bearing the burden of demonstrating that the grievance process was unavailable to him through no fault 

of his own. Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 822-23 (9th Cir. 2010); Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217, 

1224 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Plaintiff concedes there is grievance procedure available at his institution, yet indicates he has 

not filed an appeal or grievance concerning the facts alleged in his complaint. (Doc. 1 at 2.) He alleges 

only that “there was a grievance form submitted by [an]other inmate re Christopher Lewis of his 

conduct.” (Doc. 1 at 2.) However, the grievance process prohibits another inmate from submitting an 

appeal on behalf of another inmate. 15 CCR § 3084.2(g) (“An inmate or parolee shall not submit an 

appeal on behalf of another person.”). Thus, because Plaintiff filed his lawsuit without first exhausting 

his administrative remedies, dismissal of the action is appropriate. See Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 

1108, 1120 (9th Cir. 2003) (“A prisoner’s concession to nonexhaustion is a valid ground for dismissal. . 

. .”). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, 

for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 12, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00003-JLT Document 12 Filed 05/12/16 Page 2 of 2