Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01320/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01320-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
R. Cogburn
Defendant
Justin Marcus Zinman
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

JUSTIN MARCUS ZINMAN, 

Plaintiff,

v.

R. COGBURN,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01320-CDB (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING 

WITHIN 30 DAYS WHY ACTION SHOULD 

NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO 

EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

ORDER TO SUBMIT APPLICATION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS OR PAY 

FILING FEE WITHIN 45 DAYS

Clerk of the Court to Attach IFP Application

Background

Plaintiff Justin Marcus Zinman is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed his complaint with this Court on October 28, 2024. 

(Doc. 1).

Plaintiff has not paid the $405.00 filing fee or submitted an application to proceed in forma 

pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Accordingly, the Court will direct Plaintiff to pay 

the filing fee in full or submit an IFP application.

Furthermore, a brief review of the complaint reveals the incident giving rise to Plaintiff’s 

claims occurred on September 27, 2024. (Id. at 7). In his complaint, Plaintiff attests that his “claims 

Case 1:24-cv-01320-JLT-CDB Document 3 Filed 11/07/24 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

have not been formally exhausted because . . .there is no form of administrative relief possible in 

this matter[,] [Plaintiff] personally attempted to resolve this situation twice which proved to be the 

most amount of due diligence possible outside of Court[, and] this situation involves the threat of 

imminent health complications to [Plaintiff].” (Id. at 1:23–29). Nevertheless, Plaintiff has not 

shown he has exhausted his administrative remedies between September 27, 2024—the date of the 

subject incident—and October 28, 2024, the date he filed his complaint. 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) 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). 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).

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

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

Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 88, 93 (2006). In California, state-inmate grievances are subject to 

two levels of review. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3481(a), 3999.226(a)(1). Prisoners must 

generally receive a disposition from the second level of review before administrative remedies are 

deemed exhausted. See id. §§ 3483(m)(1), 3486(m), 3999.226(h); but see id. § 3483(m)(2).

In general, 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).

Here, it appears clear on the face of his complaint that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust 

administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Although Plaintiff assert that “no form of 

administrative relief [is] possible in this matter,” that is not a proper basis to fail to pursue 

administrative remedies.

Accordingly, the Court will direct Plaintiff to make a written filing in which he sets forth 

Case 1:24-cv-01320-JLT-CDB Document 3 Filed 11/07/24 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

the reasons by this Court should not dismiss this action for his failure to exhaust administrative 

remedies.

Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Within 30 days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing why 

this action should not be dismissed for his failure to exhaust. Alternatively, Plaintiff may file a 

notice of voluntary dismissal; and

2. Within 45 days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall submit the attached 

application to proceed in forma pauperis, completed and signed, or in the alternative, pay the 

$405.00 filing fee for this action.

No requests for extension will be granted without a showing of good cause. Failure to 

comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 6, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01320-JLT-CDB Document 3 Filed 11/07/24 Page 3 of 3