Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00833/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00833-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Defendant
Hanson Wilson-Millan
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

HANSON WILSON-MILLAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00833-AWI-SKO PC

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. Plaintiff has not filed

a complaint in this action. Instead, Plaintiff has filed a “Motion Requesting An Exemption to the

‘Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies’ As Required By The Prisoners Litigation Reform Act In

Order To File A Civil Complaint Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. My Request Is Based On Extenuating

Circumstances.” (Doc. #1.) Plaintiff has also filed a request for an in forma pauperis form, “federal

subpoena forms,” and instructions for filing a complaint by a prisoner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

(Docs. #3, 4.)

Plaintiff has not filed a complaint in this action. Therefore, this action was opened in error. 

See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3 (“A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the

court”). The Court will direct the clerk to close this action. The Court will provide Plaintiff with

an in forma pauperis application and a civil rights complaint form. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue his

claims, he must initiate his lawsuit by filing a complaint with the Court. 

Plaintiff is advised that the Court does not issue blank “federal subpoena forms” because

statutes normally require the court to screen in forma pauperis complaints. Thus, Plaintiff’s request

1

Case 1:10-cv-00833-AWI-SKO Document 14 Filed 06/15/10 Page 1 of 2
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

for such forms will be denied. 

The Court will not address whether Plaintiff is entitled to an “exemption” from the

exhaustion requirement under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The exhaustion requirement is an

affirmative defense that must be raised by defendants. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007). 

The defense has not yet been raised and the Court will not address the hypothetical question of

whether it applies in this case. See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 700 n.33 (1997) (federal courts

cannot issue advisory opinions). The Court will not address the question of whether Plaintiff has

exhausted until it is properly before the Court.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form and an in forma

pauperis application; and

2. The Clerk’s Office is directed to close this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 14, 2010 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:10-cv-00833-AWI-SKO Document 14 Filed 06/15/10 Page 2 of 2