Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-1_16-cv-02292/USCOURTS-cand-1_16-cv-02292-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISION

CARLOS GILBERT LAW,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BOYKIN, et. al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 16-2292 NJV (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff alleges that he was assaulted by a correctional officer and denied medical care on

March 3, 2016, at San Quentin State Prison. Plaintiff filed this action on March 28, 2016.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PLRA") amended 42 U.S.C. § 1997e to

provide that "[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 mandatory and no longer left to the discretion of the

district court. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84 (2006) (citing Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S.

731, 739 (2001)). "Prisoners must now exhaust all 'available' remedies, not just those that

meet federal standards." Id. at 85. Even when the relief sought cannot be granted by the

administrative process, i.e., monetary damages, a prisoner must still exhaust administrative

remedies. Id. at 85-86 (citing Booth, 532 U.S. at 734). 

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") provides that

inmates and parolees "may appeal any policy, decision, action, condition, or omission by

the department or its staff that the inmate or parolee can demonstrate as having a material

Case 1:16-cv-02292-NJV Document 11 Filed 05/27/16 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

adverse effect upon his or her health, safety, or welfare." Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §

3084.1(a). "Three levels of formal review are provided, and a prisoner exhausts the

grievance process when he completes the third level." Harvey v. Jordan, 605 F.3d 681,

683 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Plaintiff has not discussed exhaustion and it appears unlikely that plaintiff could have

fully exhausted his claims in the three and a half weeks between the incident and the filing

of this action. Nor can plaintiff proceed with this case if he exhausts his claim after the filing

of this action. A prisoner must exhaust his administrative remedies for constitutional claims

prior to asserting them in a civil rights complaint. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); McKinney v.

Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002). If a prisoner exhausts a claim after bringing it

before the court, his subsequent exhaustion cannot excuse his earlier failure to exhaust. 

Vaden v. Summerhill, 449 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2006) ("[A prisoner] may initiate

litigation in federal court only after the administrative process ends and leaves his

grievances unredressed. It would be inconsistent with the objectives of the statute to let him

submit his complaint any earlier than that.") When the district court concludes that the

prisoner has not exhausted administrative remedies on a claim, "the proper remedy is

dismissal of the claim without prejudice." Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d, 1108, 1120 (9th Cir.

2003) overruled on other grounds.

Plaintiff will be provided an opportunity to demonstrate that he has exhausted his

claims rather than this case proceed and plaintiff perhaps miss his opportunity to properly

exhaust and pursue this action. Plaintiff shall show cause within twenty-one (21) days,

why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust. Failure to

reply will result in dismissal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 27, 2016. 

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:16-cv-02292-NJV Document 11 Filed 05/27/16 Page 2 of 2