Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01557/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01557-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

SKYLER McMILLION,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. DOER, et al.,

 Defendants.

No. 1:24-cv-01557-SAB (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSSED, 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO 

EXHAUST THE ADMINISTRATIVE 

REMEDIES

(ECF No. 1)

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights complaint pursuant 

to Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 

I.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 

Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 

“frivolous or malicious,” that “fail[] to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that “seek[] 

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); 

see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

Case 1:24-cv-01557-SAB Document 5 Filed 12/20/24 Page 1 of 5
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

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 

is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, 

do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally 

participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 

2002).

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings 

liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 

1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be 

facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that 

each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. 

Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant has acted 

unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability” 

falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 

II.

SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS

On or about August 9 through October 9, 2024, a lockdown occurred at the United States 

Penitentiary in Atwater. Plaintiff was confined to his cell for 24 hours a day. During this time, 

Plaintiff did not have access to: (1) administrative grievance forms; (2) courts; (3) 

communication; (4) mail; (5) medical treatment; (6) personal property; and (7) cleaning supplies. 

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

On the form complaint, Plaintiff checks the box “no” in response to the question whether 

there are any administrative remedies available at his institution and states “See supporting Facts 

above.” (ECF No. 1 at 4.) Plaintiff states that he “was Denied Access to Administrative 

Remedies and cut off from the World for over 60 days.” (Id.) Within the complaint, Plaintiff 

Case 1:24-cv-01557-SAB Document 5 Filed 12/20/24 Page 2 of 5
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

further states that the “Unit Team . . . were responsible to make Administrative Remedy Forms 

(to include Federal Tort Claim Act forms) available to the Plaintiff[, and that he] had no way to 

approach the Unit Team members to request administrative remedy forms.” (Id.) Plaintiff 

submits he requested informal resolution of issues and administrative remedy forms but the unit 

team members in question “did not provide any access to [the forms] during this time period”—

when “USP Atwater was locked down from on or about [August 9, 2024 to October 9, 2024].” 

(Id.) Although Plaintiff indicates that “[t]he complete [and] utter denial of access [to] any form of 

recourse for 2 months makes this complaint ripe for court intervention[,]” Plaintiff fails to state 

whether he exhausted his remedies between the relevant dates of the lockdown incident to 

October 28, 2024, the date he signed his complaint. 

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, “[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). Exhaustion is a condition precedent to filing a 

civil rights claim. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93 (2006); see also McKinney v. Carey, 311 

F.3d 1198, 1200 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Congress could have written a statute making exhaustion a 

precondition to judgment, but it did not. The actual statute makes exhaustion a precondition to 

suit.” (citations omitted)). The exhaustion requirement “applies to all inmate suits about prison 

life.” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). Further, the nature of the relief sought by the 

prisoner or the relief offered by the prison’s administrative process is of no consequence. Booth v. 

Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). And, because the PLRA’s text and intent requires “proper” 

exhaustion, a prisoner does not satisfy the PLRA’s administrative grievance process if he files an 

untimely or procedurally defective grievance or appeal. Woodford, 548 U.S. at 93. A prisoner 

need not plead or prove exhaustion. Instead, it is an affirmative defense that must be proved by 

defendant. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007). A prison’s internal grievance process, not 

the PLRA, determines whether the grievance satisfies the PLRA exhaustion requirement. Id. at 

218. 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).

Case 1:24-cv-01557-SAB Document 5 Filed 12/20/24 Page 3 of 5
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

4

The California prison grievance system has two levels of review. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, 

§§ 3483, 3485. “Completion of the review process by the Institutional or Regional Office of 

Grievances resulting in a decision of ‘identified as staff misconduct,’ ‘pending legal matter,’ or 

‘time expired’ in accordance with subsections (g)(8) through (g)(10) of [ ] section [3483] does 

constitute exhaustion of all administrative remedies available to a claimant within the 

department.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3483(l)(2). Additionally, “[c]ompletion of the review 

process by the Office of Appeals resulting in a decision of ‘denied,’ ‘granted,’ ‘no jurisdiction,’ 

‘identified as staff misconduct,’ ‘pending legal matter,’ or ‘time expired’ in accordance with 

subsections (g)(1) through (g)(3) and (g)(8) through (g)(10) of [ ] section 3485 constitutes 

exhaustion of all administrative remedies available to a claimant within the department.” Cal. 

Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3485(l)(1).

In general, 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, 747 F.3d at 1166. Here, it appears clear on the 

face of his complaint that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing 

suit. Plaintiff contends he should be relieved of the requirement to exhaust administrative 

remedies because, during the 60-day lockdown, he was unable to access grievance forms. 

However, Plaintiff presents no allegations to demonstrate that this was anything more than a 

temporary and routine unavailability. Indeed, Plaintiff has failed to show whether any efforts by 

him to exhaust administrative remedies after the lockdown ended were thwarted. Accordingly, it 

appears has not complied with the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies. See, e.g., 

Talley v. Clark, 111 F.4th 255, 264 (3d Cir. 2024) (even if administrative remedies were 

temporarily unavailable during suicide watch without access to writing materials, it did not 

excuse inmate’s failure to request an extension once he was released and able to complete the 

necessary forms.); Smith v. Hendrick, No. 1:21-cv-1704, 2024 WL 4244831, at *7 (M.D. Pa. 

Sept. 29, 2024) (inmate purportedly denied access to grievance forms during the approximately 

three-month period, but he did not request an extension of time to file a grievance once he was 

removed from the RHU, which demonstrated failure to exhaust administrative remedies.); Roman 

Case 1:24-cv-01557-SAB Document 5 Filed 12/20/24 Page 4 of 5
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

5

v. Knowles, No. 07cv1343-JLS (POR), 2011 WL 3741012, at *7 (S.D. Cal. June 20, 2011) 

(“Plaintiff does not plead facts sufficient to establish an intentional and systematic obstruction to 

administrative remedies that, on its own, would render those remedies unavailable, and excuse his 

inability to exhaust them. Plaintiff’s pleadings themselves contain facts sufficient to establish that 

these remedies were only temporarily unavailable and thus exhaustion should not be excused.”); 

Dean v. Prison Health Servs., No. 10-14135, 2011 WL 1630114, at *8 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 28, 

2011) (“The mere fact that forms were temporarily unavailable to Plaintiff is insufficient to 

establish exhaustion”) (citing cases). 

IV.

ORDER

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Within twenty-one (21) days of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause 

why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to exhaust his 

administrative remedies before filing suit; and

2. Plaintiff’s failure to timely to respond to this order will result in the 

recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to comply with a court 

order or prosecute this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 20, 2024 

STANLEY A. BOONE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:24-cv-01557-SAB Document 5 Filed 12/20/24 Page 5 of 5