Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01177/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01177-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. Doerer
Defendant
Jeff Kile
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFF KILE,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. DOERER,

 Defendant.

No. 1:24-cv-01177-SAB (PC)

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE 

TO THIS ACTION

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DIMISS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST THE 

ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 

(ECF Nos. 7, 8)

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff 

filed the complaint on November 18, 2024. (ECF No. 4.) 

On December 9, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the action should 

not be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust the administrative remedies. (ECF No. 

7.) Plaintiff filed a “request for judicial notice” on January 6, 2025, in response to the order to 

show cause. (ECF No. 8.) 

///

///

///

Case 1:24-cv-01177-KES-SAB Document 10 Filed 01/10/25 Page 1 of 6
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

I.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 

Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 

“frivolous or malicious,” that “fail[] to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that “seek[] 

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); 

see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 

is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, 

do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally 

participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 

2002).

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings 

liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 

1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be 

facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that 

each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. 

Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant has acted 

unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability” 

falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 

II.

SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS

On or about August 9 through October 9, 2024, a lockdown occurred at the United States 

Penitentiary in Atwater. Plaintiff was confined to his cell for 24 hours a day. During this time, 

Plaintiff did not have access to: (1) administrative grievance forms; (2) courts; (3) 

Case 1:24-cv-01177-KES-SAB Document 10 Filed 01/10/25 Page 2 of 6
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

communication; (4) mail; (5) medical treatment; (6) personal property; and (7) cleaning supplies. 

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

As stated in the Court’s December 9, 2024, order to show cause, on the form complaint, 

Plaintiff checks the box “no” in response to the question whether there are any administrative 

remedies available at his institution and states “See supporting Facts above.” (ECF No. 4 at 4.) 

Plaintiff states that he “was Denied Access to Administrative Remedies and cut off from the 

World for over 60 days.” (Id.) Within the complaint, Plaintiff further states that the “Unit Team . 

. . were responsible to make Administrative Remedy Forms (to include Federal Tort Claim Act 

forms) available to the Plaintiff[, and that he] had no way to approach the Unit Team members to 

request administrative remedy forms.” (Id.) Plaintiff submits he requested informal resolution of 

issues and administrative remedy forms but the unit team members in question “did not provide 

any access to [the forms] during this time period”—when “USP Atwater was locked down from 

on or about [August 9, 2024 to October 9, 2024].” (Id.) Although Plaintiff indicates that “[t]he 

complete [and] utter denial of access [to] any form of recourse for 2 months makes this complaint 

ripe for court intervention[,]” Plaintiff fails to state whether he exhausted his remedies between 

the relevant dates of the lockdown incident to November 19, 2024, the date he signed his 

complaint. 

Under 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). Exhaustion is a condition precedent to filing a 

civil rights claim. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93 (2006); see also McKinney v. Carey, 311 

F.3d 1198, 1200 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Congress could have written a statute making exhaustion a 

precondition to judgment, but it did not. The actual statute makes exhaustion a precondition to 

suit.” (citations omitted)). The exhaustion requirement “applies to all inmate suits about prison 

life.” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). Further, the nature of the relief sought by the 

Case 1:24-cv-01177-KES-SAB Document 10 Filed 01/10/25 Page 3 of 6
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

4

prisoner or the relief offered by the prison's administrative process is of no consequence. Booth v. 

Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). And, because the PLRA’s text and intent requires “proper” 

exhaustion, a prisoner does not satisfy the PLRA’s administrative grievance process if he files an 

untimely or procedurally defective grievance or appeal. Woodford, 548 U.S. at 93. A prisoner 

need not plead or prove exhaustion. Instead, it is an affirmative defense that must be proved by 

defendant. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007). A prison’s internal grievance process, not 

the PLRA, determines whether the grievance satisfies the PLRA exhaustion requirement. Id. at 

218. 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).

The California prison grievance system has two levels of review. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, 

§§ 3483, 3485. “Completion of the review process by the Institutional or Regional Office of 

Grievances resulting in a decision of ‘identified as staff misconduct,’ ‘pending legal matter,’ or 

‘time expired’ in accordance with subsections (g)(8) through (g)(10) of [ ] section [3483] does 

constitute exhaustion of all administrative remedies available to a claimant within the 

department.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3483(l)(2). Additionally, “[c]ompletion of the review 

process by the Office of Appeals resulting in a decision of ‘denied,’ ‘granted,’ ‘no jurisdiction,’ 

‘identified as staff misconduct,’ ‘pending legal matter,’ or ‘time expired’ in accordance with 

subsections (g)(1) through (g)(3) and (g)(8) through (g)(10) of [ ] section 3485 constitutes 

exhaustion of all administrative remedies available to a claimant within the department.” Cal. 

Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3485(l)(1).

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, 747 F.3d at 1166. Here, it appears clear on the 

face of his complaint that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing 

suit. Plaintiff contends he should be relieved of the requirement to exhaust administrative 

remedies because, during the 60-day lockdown, he was unable to access grievance forms. 

However, Plaintiff presents no allegations to demonstrate that this was anything more than a 

temporary and routine unavailability. Indeed, Plaintiff has failed to show whether any efforts by 

Case 1:24-cv-01177-KES-SAB Document 10 Filed 01/10/25 Page 4 of 6
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

5

him to exhaust administrative remedies after the lockdown ended where thwarted. Accordingly, 

it appears has not complied with the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies. See, e.g., 

Talley v. Clark, 111 F.4th 255, 264 (3d Cir. 2024) (even if administrative remedies were 

temporarily unavailable during suicide watch without access to writing materials, it did not 

excuse inmate’s failure to request an extension once he was released and able to complete the 

necessary forms.); Smith v. Hendrick, No. 1:21-cv-1704, 2024 WL 4244831, at *7 (M.D. Pa. 

Sept. 29, 2024) (inmate purportedly denied access to grievance forms during the approximately 

three-month period, but he did not request an extension of time to file a grievance once he was 

removed from the RHU, which demonstrated failure to exhaust administrative remedies.); Roman 

v. Knowles, No. 07cv1343-JLS (POR), 2011 WL 3741012, at *7 (S.D. Cal. June 20, 2011) 

(“Plaintiff does not plead facts sufficient to establish an intentional and systematic obstruction to

administrative remedies that, on its own, would render those remedies unavailable, and excuse his 

inability to exhaust them. Plaintiff’s pleadings themselves contain facts sufficient to establish that 

these remedies were only temporarily unavailable and thus exhaustion should not be excused.”); 

Dean v. Prison Health Servs., No. 10-14135, 2011 WL 1630114, at *8 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 28, 

2011) (“The mere fact that forms were temporarily unavailable to Plaintiff is insufficient to 

establish exhaustion”) (citing cases). 

Thus, based on the face of the complaint, Plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative 

remedies prior to filing this case. (ECF No. 1 at 3-4.) In his response to the order to show cause, 

Plaintiff again merely states that “from Aug 9 to Oct 9 the Warden at USP Atwater locked down 

the facility. During that time Defendants failed to provide administrative remedies, cut [him] off 

from the word, failed to provide medical services, confiscated property & legal material without 

due process and failed to provide sanitation supplies.” (ECF No. 8.) Because Plaintiff has not 

exhausted the administrative remedies, the action should be dismissed, without prejudice. 

Plaintiff is informed that a dismissal of this action, without prejudice, does not prevent him from 

re-filing this action in this Court at a later date, which would be after he completed exhaustion of 

his administrative remedies. 

///

Case 1:24-cv-01177-KES-SAB Document 10 Filed 01/10/25 Page 5 of 6
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

6

IV.

ORDER AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Accordingly, the order to show cause issued on December 9, 2024, (ECF No. 7), is 

HEREBY DISCHARGED and the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign a 

District Judge to this action.

Furthermore, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without 

prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 

(14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file 

written objections with the Court, limited to 15 pages in length, including exhibits. The 

document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified 

time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39

(9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2025 

STANLEY A. BOONE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:24-cv-01177-KES-SAB Document 10 Filed 01/10/25 Page 6 of 6