Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00806/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00806-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lonnie Dangerfield
Plaintiff
Unknown
Defendant

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

LONNIE DANGERFIELD,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNKNOWN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00806-JLT (PC)

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF

TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED, 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR FAILUE 

TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE 

REMEDIES PRIOR TO FILING SUIT

(Doc. 1)

30-DAY DEADLINE

This action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was transferred in from the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of California on June 10, 2016.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 requires that “[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). Prisoners are required to exhaust the available 

administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007); McKinney v. 

Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). Exhaustion is required regardless of the relief 

sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the process, Booth v. Churner, 532 

U.S. 731, 741 (2001), and the exhaustion requirement applies to all suits relating to prison life, 

Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516 (2002). 

Case 1:16-cv-00806-JLT Document 14 Filed 09/22/16 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

2

In the complaint,1Plaintiff concedes that while there is an appeals/grievance procedure at 

the institution, he did not present the facts in the complaint for review through that procedure. 

(Doc. 1, Comp., p. 1.) Thus, it appears Plaintiff filed suit prematurely without first exhausting in 

compliance with section 1997e(a). Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 (9th Cir. 2003) (“A 

prisoner’s concession to nonexhaustion is a valid ground for dismissal. . . .”). Accordingly, the 

Court ORDERS:

1. Within 30 days Plaintiff SHALL show cause in writing why this action should not 

be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. 

Plaintiff is advised that his failure to respond will result in the Court dismissing the 

action without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 22, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1

It is also noteworthy that the Complaint is blank, other than Plaintiff’s name, identifying information, “x” marks on 

the boxes that inquire regarding exhaustion, and Plaintiff’s signature. (Doc. 6.) Plaintiff initiated this action by filing 

a packet of exhibits, but without allegations in the Complaint, a purpose and intent behind the filing of the exhibits 

cannot be ascertained. 

Case 1:16-cv-00806-JLT Document 14 Filed 09/22/16 Page 2 of 2