Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00396/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00396-2/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

Plaintiff Evan E. Hann, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 12, 2015. Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction 

of a United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 6.)

On May 4, 2015, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to show cause why this action 

should not be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to 

filing this action. The Court ordered Plaintiff to submit a response within twenty-one (21) days 

following service. (ECF No. 9.) Twenty-one days have passed and Plaintiff has not filed a response. 

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

governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or 

malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief 

EVAN E. HANN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

HARMON, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00396-BAM (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST 

PRIOR TO FILING SUIT

(ECF Nos. 1, 9)

Case 1:15-cv-00396-BAM Document 10 Filed 05/29/15 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

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Pursuant to 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). Prisoners are required to exhaust the available administrative 

remedies prior to filing suit. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211, 127 S.Ct. 910 (2007); McKinney v. 

Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). 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, 121 S.Ct. 1819 (2001), and the exhaustion requirement applies to all suits relating to prison 

life, Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532, 122 S.Ct. 983 (2002). 

In his complaint, Plaintiff concedes that while he filed a grievance, the process has not yet been 

completed. (ECF No. 1, Comp., p. 2.) Plaintiff has not presented any argument demonstrating that he 

should be excused from the exhaustion requirement. Thus, it appears Plaintiff filed suit prematurely 

without first exhausting his administrative remedies in compliance with section 1997e(a). 

In rare cases where a failure to exhaust is clear from the face of the complaint, it may be 

dismissed for failure to state a claim. See, e.g., Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1169 (9th Cir. 2014); 

Lucas v. Director of Dep’t of Corrections, 2015 WL 1014037, *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2015) (relying on 

Albino and dismissing complaint without prejudice on screening due to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies prior to filing suit).

Accordingly, this action is HEREBY DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s

failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 29, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00396-BAM Document 10 Filed 05/29/15 Page 2 of 2