Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04278/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04278-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

No. C 14-4278 RS (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

*E-Filed 1/21/15*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

TYRONE YOUNGS,

Plaintiff,

v.

K.A. THOMPSON, et al., 

Defendants. /

No. C 14-4278 RS (PR)

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO

SHOW CAUSE ON OR BEFORE

MARCH 2, 2015 WHY THE ACTION

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which raises claims against his jailors at San Quentin State Prison. 

It is clear from the face of the complaint that plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative

remedies prior to filing this action. 

Prisoners must properly exhaust their administrative remedies before filing suit in

federal court. “No 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 is no longer left to the discretion of the

district court. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85 (2006) (citing Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S.

Case 3:14-cv-04278-RS Document 16 Filed 01/21/15 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

No. C 14-4278 RS (PR)

2 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

731, 739 (2001)). The PLRA exhaustion requirement requires “proper exhaustion” of all

available administrative remedies. Id. at 93. 

The State of California provides its prisoners the right to appeal administratively “any

policy, decision, action, condition, or omission by the [CDCR] or its staff that the inmate . . .

can demonstrate as having a material adverse effect upon his or her health, safety, or

welfare.” 15 CCR § 3084.1(a). In order to exhaust available administrative remedies within

this system, a prisoner must proceed through several levels of appeal: (1) informal review,

submitted on a CDC 602 inmate appeal form; (2) first formal level appeal, to an institution

appeals coordinator; (3) second formal level appeal, to the institution warden; and (4) third

formal level appeal, to the Director of the CDCR. See CCR § 3084.7; Brodheim v. Cry, 584

F.3d 1262, 1264-65 (9th Cir. 2009). An inmate’s obligation to exhaust persists as long as

some remedy is available; when that is no longer the case, the prisoner need not further

pursue the grievance. Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Plaintiff is ordered to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure

to exhaust his administrative remedies. In his response, he must state clearly whether he has

exhausted his administrative remedies (that is, through all levels of review), or, if he has not

exhausted to state at what stage his grievance(s) are pending. If he has exhausted his

administrative remedies, plaintiff must file an amended complaint that restates his claims and

asserts that he has complied with the exhaustion requirement. Plaintiff’s response to this

order, including, if necessary, an amended complaint, must be filed on or before March

2, 2015. No extensions of time will be granted. Failure to file a response by March 2,

2015 addressing the specific concerns raised in this order will result in the dismissal of

the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 21, 2015 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-04278-RS Document 16 Filed 01/21/15 Page 2 of 2