(PC) Tran v. Nickell et al, No. 1:2020cv00946 - Document 18 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 16 Findings and Recommendations and DISMISSING Action for Failure to Exhaust, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 5/24/2021. CASE CLOSED. (Rivera, O)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 KIM-KHOI THAI TRAN, 7 Plaintiff, 8 9 CASE NO. 1:20-cv-00946-AWI-JLT (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST v. J. NICKELL, et al., 10 Defendants. (Doc. No. 16) 11 12 13 Plaintiff Kim-Khoi Thai Tran is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 14 this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States 15 magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Eastern District of California Local 16 Rule 302. 17 On March 4, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge found that Plaintiff failed to exhaust 18 administrative remedies before filing suit, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Doc. 19 No. 13. Therefore, the magistrate judge ordered Plaintiff, within twenty-one days, to show cause 20 why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to exhaust. Id. at 2. Plaintiff failed to 21 respond to the order to show cause within the time provided. 22 Accordingly, on April 21, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 23 recommendations, recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Doc. No. 16. 24 The magistrate judge found that it is clear on this face of his complaint that Plaintiff failed to 25 exhaust administrative remedies prior to initiating this action. Id. at 2. The judge provided 26 Plaintiff fourteen days to file objections to the findings and recommendations. Id. Plaintiff has 27 not filed any objections, and the time to do so has passed. Instead, on May 14, 2021, Plaintiff 28 filed a notice, to which he attached a letter from the Office of Appeals of the California 1 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Doc. No. 17. The letter indicates that the Office of 2 Appeals denied his administrative appeal regarding the incident underlying this action on April 13, 3 2021. Id. at 2. Plaintiff initiated this action on June 29, 2020. Doc. No. 1. 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 5 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s notice, 6 the Court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper 7 analysis. As the magistrate judge correctly explained, “exhaustion is mandatory under the PLRA 8 and . . . unexhausted claims cannot be brought in court.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007) 9 (cited source omitted). Exhaustion must be completed before the filing of a complaint; it cannot 10 be completed during the pendency of lawsuit. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 11 2002). Thus, even though Plaintiff appears to have recently exhausted his administrative 12 remedies, because he completed the exhaustion process after he filed his complaint, the Court 13 must dismiss this action. Dismissal will be “without prejudice,” meaning that Plaintiff may file a 14 new lawsuit based on the now-exhausted claims, if otherwise appropriate. 15 16 ORDER 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 18 1. 19 20 ADOPTED in full; 2. 21 22 The findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 16) issued on April 21, 2021, are This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: May 24, 2021 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.