Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01182/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01182-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. Doerer
Defendant
James Michael Papazian
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES MICHAEL PAPAZIAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. DOERER,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01182-HBK (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILING TO EXHAUST 

ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

JANUARY 17, 2025 DEADLINE 

Plaintiff, a federal prisoner incarcerated at United States Penitentiary, Atwater, proceeds 

on his pro se amended civil rights complaint pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of 

the Federal Bureau of Narcotics1and the Federal Torts Claim Act (“FTCA”). (Doc. No. 4, 

“amended complaint”). Upon review of the amended complaint, it appears Plaintiff did avail 

himself of the administrative remedies available through the Bureau of Prison (“BOP”) prior to 

filing suit. A failure to exhaust administrative remedies is fatal to a prisoner’s complaint. Prior to 

recommending dismissal of this action, the Court will afford Plaintiff an opportunity to show 

cause why the Court should dismiss the amended complaint for failure to exhaust administrative 

remedies. Plaintiff is warned that if he commenced this action before exhausting his 

1

403 U.S. 388 (1971).

Case 1:24-cv-01182-HBK Document 7 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 remedies and he is not excused from the exhaustion requirement, a dismissal on 

this basis will count as a strike under 1915(g).2 El-Shaddai v. Zamora, 833 F.3d 1036, 1043–44 

(9th Cir. 2016). Alternatively, because no defendant has yet been served, Plaintiff may file a 

notice of voluntarily dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 to 

avoid a strike. After Plaintiff exhausts his administrative remedies, he may refile a new 

complaint in a new action. 

Applicable Exhaustion Law 

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”), “[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 condition 

precedent to filing a civil suit. 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.” (citation 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 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. 

The PLRA recognizes no exception to the exhaustion requirement, and the court may not 

recognize a new exception, even in “special circumstances.” Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1862 

(2016). The one significant qualifier is that “the remedies must indeed be ‘available’ to the 

prisoner.” Id. at 1856. A defendant has the burden of showing that “some relief remains 

‘available.’” Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 936-937 (9th Cir. 2005). “To be available, a remedy 

2 An inmate who accumulates three or more strikes may be barred from proceeding in forma 

pauperis in future civil actions. 

Case 1:24-cv-01182-HBK Document 7 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

must be available ‘as a practical matter’; it must be ‘capable of use; at hand.’” Albino v. Baca, 

747 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Brown, 422 F.3d at 937).

A prisoner need not plead or prove exhaustion in a Bivens action. Rather, 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 218.3 However, where exhaustion is apparent from the 

face of a complaint, the court is required to dismiss the complaint and the dismissal constitutes a 

strike under the PLRA. El-Shaddai v. Zamora, 833 F.3d 1036, 1043–44 (9th Cir. 2016).

In contrast, the timely filing of an administrative claim is a jurisdictional prerequisite to 

bringing a suit under the FTCA, and it must be affirmatively alleged in the complaint. See McNeil

v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 111 (1993). Unlike a Bivens claim, a plaintiff has the burden to 

plead and prove compliance with the FTCA administrative claim requirements. Gillespie v.

Civiletti, 629 F. 2d 637, 640 (9th Cir. 1980) (timely filing and denial of an administrative claim is 

jurisdictional to bring suit under the FTCA and must be alleged in the complaint). See also Munns

v. Kerry, 782 F.3d 402, 413 (9th Cir. 2015) (“The FTCA requires, as a prerequisite for federal 

court jurisdiction, that a claimant first provide written notification of the incident giving rise to 

the injury, accompanied by a claim for money damages to the federal agency responsible for the 

injury.”).

Non-Exhaustion Apparent From Face of the Amended Complaint

Plaintiff denies that there were administrative remedies available to him at USP-Atwater. 

(Doc. No. 4 at 4). Plaintiff claims he “was denied access to administrative remedies and cut off 

from the world for over 60 days.” (Id.). More specifically, Plaintiff states that USP-Atwater was 

locked down from August 9 through October 9, 2024. (Id.). Under a section titled “Exhaustion” 

in his amended complaint, Plaintiff states was denied access to Administrative Remedies and Tort 

Claims Forms” during the lockdown. (Id. at 11). Notably, Plaintiff does not explain whether he 

3 The Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) grievance process, which is set forth at 28 C.F.R. § 542.13–.19, governs 

this action.

Case 1:24-cv-01182-HBK Document 7 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

has exhausted his remedies after the relevant dates of the lockdown to November 10, 2024, the 

date he signed his amended complaint. (Id. at 12). 

Essentially, Plaintiff suggests he should be relieved of the requirement to exhaust 

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

forms. But Plaintiff provides no factual allegations to suggest that the unavailability of grievance 

forms was anything other temporary. 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 

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).

////

////

////

Case 1:24-cv-01182-HBK Document 7 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

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. No later than January 17, 2025, Plaintiff shall deliver to correctional officials for

mailing his response to this order to show cause why this action should not be 

dismissed for his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. 

2. In the alternative, by the same date, Plaintiff may deliver a notice of voluntary 

dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i).

4

 

3. Plaintiff’s failure to timely to respond to this show cause order will result in the 

recommendation that this action be dismissed either as a sanction for failure to comply 

with a court order or prosecute this action consistent with Local Rule 110 and/or for 

failing to exhaust administrative remedies. 

Dated: December 20, 2024 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4 This procedural rule vests a plaintiff with authority to voluntarily dismiss an action without prejudice 

before a party responds to the operative complaint as a matter of law.

Case 1:24-cv-01182-HBK Document 7 Filed 12/20/24 Page 5 of 5