Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01385/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01385-1/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATTHEW JANKOWICZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA SUBSTANCE ABUSE 

TREATMENT FACILITY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-01385-KES-BAM (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING 

DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO 

EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

Doc. 9

Plaintiff Matthew Jankowicz is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States 

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

The assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). On September 27, 2023, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for plaintiff’s failure to exhaust 

his administrative remedies prior to filing this action. Doc. 9. Specifically, the magistrate judge 

noted that plaintiff wrote “pending” on his complaint under the section entitled “Administrative 

Remedies.” Id. at 2. The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained 

notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. Id. at 3.

Plaintiff timely filed objections on October 18, 2023. Doc. 11. On April 3, 2024, plaintiff filed 

an additional declaration regarding the findings and recommendations. Doc. 15.

Case 1:23-cv-01385-KES-BAM Document 16 Filed 12/03/24 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de 

novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court concludes that the findings 

and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 

In plaintiff’s objections, plaintiff notes “I did not know I had to exhaust administrative 

remedies prior to filing suit, which I have never done in order to submit[] in court, so I ‘pray’ you 

can forgive me and move on in this lawsuit with merits.” Doc. 11 at 1. He further states that he 

filed a grievance on September 10, 2023, and that there had been “no reply” as of October 12, 

2023. Id. at 2. In his April 3, 2024 declaration, plaintiff indicates that his grievance still had not 

been processed. Doc. 15 (“I still not got back my grievance . . ..”). He further states that he is “at 

the very highest level [of] administrative relief, and is waiting to get [a] reply.” Id.

Plaintiff’s arguments appear to be that he did not know that he needed to exhaust all

administrative remedies before bringing suit, that he has filed a grievance and is in the process of 

exhausting his administrative remedies, and that the prison officials have failed to process the 

filed grievance in a timely manner. See Docs. 11, 15. Alhough plaintiff appears to be in the 

process of exhausting his administrative remedies, “exhausting available remedies during the 

course of litigation [does] not comply” with the exhaustion requirement; rather, “a plaintiff must 

exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing an action.” See Andres v. Marshall, 867 F.3d 

1076, 1078 (9th Cir. 2017) (emphasis added). “Plaintiff's lack of legal knowledge that he was 

required to exhaust through all levels of administrative review before filing suit in federal court 

[is not] an exception” to the requirement that he do so. Anderson v. Beregovskaya, Case No. 

1:21-cv-01451-SAB (PC), 2021 WL 4479163, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2021) (citing Gurley v. 

Clark, 620 F. App’x 671, 673 (10 Cir. 2015).

Administrative exhaustion is measured “at the time the action is filed.” Id. at 1079. Here, 

plaintiff alleges he filed his grievance on September 10, 2023. Doc. 11 at 2. He filed this case 

only twelve days later, on September 22, 2023 (Doc. 1), before exhausting his administrative 

remedies. Therefore, plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff may

bring his claim again in federal court after exhausting his administrative remedies.

Case 1:23-cv-01385-KES-BAM Document 16 Filed 12/03/24 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 27, 2023, Doc. 9, are adopted in 

full;

2. This action is dismissed, without prejudice, for plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative 

remedies prior to filing suit; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 2, 2024 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01385-KES-BAM Document 16 Filed 12/03/24 Page 3 of 3