Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01186/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01186-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. Doerer
Defendant
Kayce White
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KAYCE WHITE,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. DOERER,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01186-CDB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO DISMISS ACTION WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE FOR PLAINTIFF’S 

FAILURE TO EXHAUST 

ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

(Doc. 7)

14-DAY DEADLINE

Clerk of the Court to Assign District Judge

Plaintiff Kayce White is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action.

Relevant Procedural Background

Plaintiff filed his complaint with this Court on November 18, 2024. (Doc. 4). A brief 

review of the complaint reveals the incident giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred on August 

9, 2024. (Id. at 4). In his complaint, Plaintiff indicates that there are not any administrative 

remedies (grievance procedures or administrative appeals) available where he is incarcerated. 

(Id.). Plaintiff indicates that he “was denied access to administrative remedies and cut off from 

the world for over 60 days.” (Id.). Specifically, Plaintiff provides 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 

Case 1:24-cv-01186-JLT-CDB Document 9 Filed 12/20/24 Page 1 of 5
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

administrative remedy forms.” (Id.). Plaintiff states 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.). Though 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[,]” (Id.), Plaintiff does not state whether he exhausted or attempted to 

exhaust his remedies between the end date of the lockdown (e.g., October 9, 2024) to November 

19, 2024, the date he signed his complaint.

Because the undersigned determined it appears clear on the face of the complaint that 

Plaintiff has failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit as required under the 

Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), on November 21, 2024, the Court issued the Order to 

Show Cause (“OSC”) ordering Plaintiff “within 21 days of the date of service of this order, to

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

administrative remedies.” (Doc. 7 at 4) (emphasis original). Plaintiff was forewarned that 

“[f]ailure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be 

dismissed.” (Id.) (emphasis original). Plaintiff failed to file a response to the Court’s show cause 

order and the deadline for his filing has passed.

Exhaustion Requirements

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 

Case 1:24-cv-01186-JLT-CDB Document 9 Filed 12/20/24 Page 2 of 5
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

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).

Discussion

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

administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Plaintiff appears to suggest 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 advances no allegations to suggest this was 

anything other than a temporary unavailability. Plaintiff does not demonstrate whether any 

efforts by him to exhaust administrative remedies after the lockdown ended where thwarted. 

Thus, he has not complied with the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies. See, e.g.,

Talley v. Clark, 111 F.4th 255, 264 (3d Cir. 2024) (“It is true that administrative remedies were 

temporarily ‘unavailable’ while Talley was on suicide watch without access to writing materials, 

but that does not excuse his 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) (“Smith was purportedly denied access to grievance forms during the 

approximately three-month period that he was housed in the RHU, but he did not request an 

extension of time to file a grievance once he was removed from the RHU. Smith’s failure to 

request an extension of time once the impediment to filing a grievance was removed constitutes a 

failure to exhaust administrative remedies.”) (citing Talley, 111 F.4th at 264); 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 

Case 1:24-cv-01186-JLT-CDB Document 9 Filed 12/20/24 Page 3 of 5
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

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 Services, 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).

Accordingly, because Plaintiff has failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing 

suit in compliance with the Prison Litigation Reform Act, and otherwise comply with this Court’s 

orders in responding to the show cause order, the undersigned will recommend dismissal of this 

action without prejudice to Plaintiff’s re-filing once his claims are exhausted. Baca, 747 F.3d at 

1166; see 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110.

Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Case 1:24-cv-01186-JLT-CDB Document 9 Filed 12/20/24 Page 4 of 5
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

Conclusion and Recommendation

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign a District Judge to 

this case.

For the reasons given above, IT IS RECOMMENDED as follows:

1. The Court DISMISS this action without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust 

his administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act as is clear on 

the face of his complaint and failure to respond to the show cause order.

2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this case.

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

Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days

after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written 

objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned, “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and shall not exceed 15 pages without 

leave of Court and good cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the 

Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference the 

exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise 

reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page limitation may 

be disregarded by the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations 

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). A party’s failure to file any objections within the specified time 

may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 

(9th Cir. 2014).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 20, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01186-JLT-CDB Document 9 Filed 12/20/24 Page 5 of 5