Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01285/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01285-1/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

JOSEPH TOWNSEND

Plaintiff,

v.

T. COOK, et al.,

Defendant.

No. 1:24-cv-01285 GSA (PC)

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

ORDER RECOMMENDING THAT THIS 

MATTER BE SUMMARILY DISMISSED 

FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST 

ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES PRIOR TO 

FILING COMPLAINT IN THIS COURT

See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)

PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS DUE IN 

FOURTEEN DAYS

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.

For the reasons stated below, the undersigned will recommend that this matter be 

summarily dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit in this 

Court. Plaintiff will be given fourteen days to file objections to this order.

Case 1:24-cv-01285-KES-GSA Document 10 Filed 01/02/25 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

I. RELEVANT FACTS

On October 22, 2024, Plaintiff’s complaint was docketed. ECF No. 1. Approximately 

one month later, the Court conducted a cursory review of the complain, which led to it issuing an 

order to show cause. See ECF No. 8. In that order, the Court noted that in the complaint, when 

Plaintiff was asked whether the grievance process at his prison had been completed, he responded

that he had not; that he was “still waiting for a response.” See id. at 3 (order to show cause

referencing ECF No. 1 at 3).

Plaintiff was given fourteen days to file the showing of cause. ECF No. 8 at 3. To date, 

Plaintiff has not filed it, nor has he requested an extension of time to do so. He has not responded 

to the Court’s order in any way.

II. DISCUSSION

The PLRA requires that a prisoner exhaust administrative remedies before submitting any 

papers to the federal courts. Vaden v. Summerhill, 449 F.3d 1047, 1048 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff 

clearly states in his complaint that he has not done this. See ECF No. 1 at 3. In addition, his only 

reason for not having done so – i.e., that he is “still waiting for a response” – does not fall within 

any of the Ross exceptions. See id. Therefore, Plaintiff’s complaint is improperly before this 

Court. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (stating no action can be brought by a prisoner under Section 

1983 with respect to prison conditions until available administrative remedies have been 

exhausted). For these reasons, the undersigned shall recommend that this matter be summarily 

dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a 

District Judge to this matter.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this matter be SUMMARILY DISMISSED 

failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit in this Court. See 42 U.S.C. § 

1997e(a).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

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

after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 

Case 1:24-cv-01285-KES-GSA Document 10 Filed 01/02/25 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

with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 

and Recommendations,” and it shall not exceed fifteen pages.

The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the objections. To the extent that a party 

wishes to refer to any exhibit, when possible, the party must reference the exhibit in the record by 

its CM/ECF document and page number or reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed 

in excess of the fifteen-page limit may be disregarded by the District Judge when conducting the 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C) review of the findings and recommendations. A party’s failure to file 

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal. See

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 

Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 31, 2024 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01285-KES-GSA Document 10 Filed 01/02/25 Page 3 of 3