Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01101/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01101-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ZURI HENLEY, 

Plaintiff,

v.

BURNES, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01101-JLT (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST 

ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 

21-DAY DEADLINE

Zuri Henley, a state prisoner, initiated this civil rights action on August 13, 2019. (See

Doc. 1.) In his first amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that between August 12, 2019, and 

August 23, 2019, correctional officers at California State Prison, Corcoran, subjected him to 

retaliation, including not providing him meals, for filing a lawsuit against CDCR. (See Doc. 7 at 

1, 3-4.) Plaintiff states that he filed an administrative grievance, but it “is still currently being 

processed.” (Id. at 1.)

The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect 

to prison conditions under ... 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 of administrative remedies is mandatory and “unexhausted 

claims cannot be brought in court.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (citation omitted). Inmates 

are required to “complete the administrative review process in accordance with the applicable 

Case 1:19-cv-01101-DAD-JLT Document 10 Filed 02/06/20 Page 1 of 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

2

procedural rules, including deadlines, as a precondition to bringing suit in federal court.”

Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 88, 93 (2006). The exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate 

suits relating to prison life, Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002), regardless of the relief 

sought by the prisoner or offered by the administrative process, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 

741 (2001). Generally, 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 v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 2014).

It is clear on the face of his complaint that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative 

remedies prior to filing suit on August 13, 2019. Though Plaintiff’s allegations are troubling, 

“exhaustion is mandatory under the PLRA.” Jones, 549 U.S. at 211. Accordingly, within 21 

days, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed, without

prejudice, for his failure to exhaust. Alternatively, Plaintiff may file a notice of voluntary 

dismissal. Plaintiff is advised that failure to timely respond to this order will result in dismissal of 

this action with prejudice for failure to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 6, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01101-DAD-JLT Document 10 Filed 02/06/20 Page 2 of 2