1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 IN RE DONALD C. JEFFERY, Case No.22-cv-05308-NC 12 Plaintif. ORDER OF DISMISSAL 13 Re: Dkt. No. 5 14

15 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a prisoner at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, California 19 (“CTF”), sent a letter to the Court which complained of the conditions of Plaintiff’s 20 confinement. Dkt. No. 1. In an effort to protect Plaintiff’s rights, the Clerk of the Court 21 opened a new civil rights action in Plaintiff’s name. Id. That same day, the Clerk sent 22 Plaintiff a notice that Plaintiff needed to file a formal complaint in order to pursue this 23 matter. Dkt. No. 2. 24 In response, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “motion for notification.” Dkt. No. 25 5. In that document, Plaintiff stated that he did not intend to file an action unless the Court 26 could preemptively waive the administrative exhaustion requirement. See id. If the Court 27 could not preemptively waive the administrative exhaustion requirement, then Plaintiff 1 id. (“I was not filing an action at that time unless given permission . . . .”) (emphasis 2 added). Plaintiff made clear that he has administrative appeals open, and that he is in the 3 process of exhausting his administrative remedies. See id. (stating that if the Court does 4 not preemptively waive the exhaustion requirement, then Plaintiff will “continue with his 5 602”); see also Dkt. No. 1 (“There are (5) 602 administrative appeals pending . . . .”). 6 Courts may excuse a plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies if the 7 plaintiff shows that those remedies are effectively unavailable. See Andres v. Marshall, 8

(9th Cir. 2017). However, the Court is unaware of any authority that 9 would allow it to waive the exhaustion requirement before a complaint even is filed, much 10 less before a plaintiff has made the required showing of unavailability. As Plaintiff makes 11 clear that he intended to file a complaint only if the Court could waive exhaustion 12 requirements beforehand, see Dkt No. 5, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s alternative request 13 and dismiss this matter. No filing fee will be due for this action. 14 The Clerk shall close the file. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 Dated: October 11, 2022 _____________________________________ NATHANAEL M. COUSINS 18 United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27