Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00396/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00396-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Evan E. Hann
Plaintiff
Harmon
Defendant

Document Text:

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. 

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). 

EVAN E. HANN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

HARMON, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW 

CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 

DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR 

FAILUE TO EXHAUST PRIOR TO FILING SUIT

(ECF No. 1)

TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE

Case 1:15-cv-00396-BAM Document 9 Filed 05/04/15 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

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

completed. (ECF No. 1, Comp., p. 2.) Thus, it appears Plaintiff filed suit prematurely without first 

exhausting in compliance with section 1997e(a).

Accordingly, Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED to show cause within twenty-one (21) days

from the date of service of this order why this action should not be dismissed, without prejudice, for 

failure to exhaust prior to filing suit. See, e.g., Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1169 (9th Cir. 2014) 

(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); Lucas v. Director of Dept. 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). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00396-BAM Document 9 Filed 05/04/15 Page 2 of 2