Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00896/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00896-1/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MALIK DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JASMIN HERRERA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:24-cv-0896 GSA (PC)

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE

(ECF No. 6)

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil 

rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

Before this Court is Plaintiff’s response to an order to show cause. ECF Nos. 6, 8 (order 

to show cause; showing of cause, respectively). For the reasons stated below, the showing of 

cause will be discharged.

I. BACKGROUND

On August 7, 2024, after completing a cursory review of Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court 

issued an order directing Plaintiff to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed for 

failure to exhaust administrative remedies. ECF No. 6. The showing of cause was to be filed by 

Plaintiff by August 20, 2024. Id. at 6.

Case 1:24-cv-00896-GSA Document 9 Filed 08/21/24 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

Plaintiff has timely filed a showing of cause. ECF No. 8. In it, Plaintiff states that he has 

attempted to exhaust his administrative remedies at the highest level,but he has been unable to do 

so given prison officials’ extreme delay in addressing his grievance appeals. Id. at 2. 

Specifically, he states that prison officials are afforded sixty days to respond to grievances; that it 

has been over a year since he filed his appeal at the highest level and that he has yet to receive a 

response. Id. at 2-3.

II. DISCUSSION

It has been held that an administrative remedy is effectively unavailable when a prison’s 

failure to respond prevents an inmate from taking advantage of its grievance system. Fordley v. 

Lizarraga, 18 F.4th 344, 354-55 (9th Cir. 2021) (citing Andres v. Marshall, 867 F.3d 1076, 1079 

(9th Cir. 2017)). Therefore, consistent with Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632 (2016), it appears that at 

this early screening stage, Plaintiff has provided a sufficient reason for not having exhausted his 

administrative remedies prior to filing his complaint in this Court. See id. at 643-44 (listing 

reasons that excuse failure to exhaust). Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s showing of 

cause is adequate and the order to show cause will be discharged. In so doing, however, Plaintiff 

is informed that this ruling does not prevent any viable defendant from raising the exhaustion 

issue in his or her pleadings at a later date.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The showing of cause issued August 7, 2024 (ECF No. 6), is DISCHARGED, and

2. This discharge does not prevent a viable defendant from raising the question of 

exhaustion at a later date.

Under separate order, the Court will address Plaintiff’s application to proceed in 

forma pauperis. Thereafter, the complaint will be screened in due course.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 20, 2024 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00896-GSA Document 9 Filed 08/21/24 Page 2 of 2