Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01412/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01412-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. Cuevas
Defendant
Javier Flores
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

JAVIER FLORES,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. CUEVAS,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01412-CDB (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

REQUESTED EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT AS 

MODIFIED

(Doc. 1)

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW 

CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 

DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST 

ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

21-DAY DEADLINE

Background

Plaintiff Javier Flores, a state inmate proceeding pro se, initiated this action with the filing 

of a complaint in the California Superior Court for the County of Kings, alleging, among other 

things, violations of his rights by Defendant J. Cuevas under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth 

Amendments of the United States Constitution. (Doc. 1 p. 7).

A. Defendant’s Request for Screening

Defendant removed the action to this Court on November 18, 2024. (Doc. 1 pp. 1-3). In 

his notice of removal, Defendant requests the Court screen Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A and grant Defendant 30 days to respond to the complaint from the date of service 

of the Court’s order screening the complaint. Id. at 3.

Defendant’s request for an extension of time to respond to the complaint after service of 

the Court’s screening order will be granted. The Court shall proceed with screening Plaintiff’s 

Case 1:24-cv-01412-CDB Document 3 Filed 11/21/24 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

complaint in due course.

B. Plaintiff’s Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies

In his Complaint, Plaintiff does not indicate or show he has exhausted his administrative 

remedies between December 28, 2023—the date of the subject incident—and September 3, 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. Accordingly, the Court will order Plaintiff to show 

cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to exhaust

Conclusion and Order

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

(1) Defendant shall have 21 days to respond to Plaintiff’s complaint from the date of 

Case 1:24-cv-01412-CDB Document 3 Filed 11/21/24 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

service of an assigned district judge’s adoption of any findings and recommendations following 

screening of the complaint finding cognizable claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i); and

(2) Plaintiff, within 21 days of the date of service of this order, shall show cause in 

writing why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 

Any failure by Plaintiff to timely respond to this order may result in the imposition of 

sanctions, up to and including a recommendation that the action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 21, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01412-CDB Document 3 Filed 11/21/24 Page 3 of 3