1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIE JENKINS, Case No. 1:25-cv-01125-JLT-CDB (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATIONS

14 RODRIGUEZ, et al., (Doc. 6, 7) 15 Defendants.

16

17 I. Background 18 Plaintiff Willie Jenkins is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed 19 under

. On September 4, 2025, Plaintiff initiated this action with the filing a 20 complaint. (Doc. 1). At the same time, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis 21 (“IFP”). (Doc. 2). 22 On September 5, 2025, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the action 23 should not be dismissed because it appeared Plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative 24 remedies, as required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, prior to commencing this action. 25 (Doc. 4). Specifically, Plaintiff represented in his complaint that there were administrative 26 remedies at the institution in which he is incarcerated but that he did not submit a request for 27 administrative relief, nor appeal his requests to the highest level. (See id.). After the deadline to 28 respond to the order to show cause passed with no response by Plaintiff, the undersigned issued 1 findings and recommendations to dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to comply with 2 court orders and because Plaintiff had failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. 3 (See Doc. 6). 4 On October 3, 2025, Plaintiff timely filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 5 (Doc. 7). Therein, Plaintiff represents that he did file a grievance but it was refused because it was 6 not written correctly, despite the fact that it was written correctly. Plaintiff states that he tried to 7 resubmit his grievance but was told that it could not be submitted “after 14 days,” but he had “tried 8 to submit it before the 14 days.”

. 9 II. Governing Law 10 “[A]dministrative remedies must ... be ‘available’” to the prisoner. Ross v. Blake,

632, 632 (2016). In Ross, the Supreme Court held that “an inmate is required to exhaust those, but 12 only those, grievance procedures that are ‘capable of use’ to obtain ‘some relief for the action 13 complained of.’” Ross, 578 U.S. at 642 (citing Booth v. Churner,

(2001)). The 14 Court noted that there are “three kinds of circumstances in which an administrative remedy ... is 15 not capable of use to obtain relief” and “when one (or more) [of these circumstances is present], 16 an inmate’s duty to exhaust ‘available’ remedies does not come into play.” Id. at 643. 17 The Ross Court described this qualification (where an administrative remedy is deemed 18 “unavailable”) as follows: (1) where the process “operates as a simple dead end—with officers 19 unable or consistently unwilling to provide any relief to aggrieved inmates”; (2) where the process 20 is “so opaque that it becomes, practically speaking, incapable of use”; and (3) where “prison 21 administrators thwart inmates from taking advantage of a grievance process through machination, 22 misrepresentation, or intimidation.” Storm v. Officer of California Governor, No. 1:24-cv-00917- 23 EPG (PC),

, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2024) (citing Ross, 578 U.S. at 639, 24 643-44). “[S]uch interference with an inmate’s pursuit of relief renders the administrative process 25 unavailable.” Id. 26 III. Discussion 27 Here, Plaintiff asserts in his response to the Court’s show cause order that prison officials 28 refused to accept his grievances. Although Plaintiff’s assertion is not sworn under the penalty of 1 | perjury, liberally construing the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint and based on Plaintiff’s 2 | arguments as to the unavailability of administrative remedies in his objections to the findings and 3 || recommendations, the Court finds good cause to vacate the findings and recommendations. See 4 | Creamer v. California State Prison Delano, Case No. 1:23-cv-00139-CDB (PC),

| 2024859, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2023) (“Liberally construing this pro se filing, although not 6 | expressly stated, the Court understands Plaintiff to contend his failure to exhaust administrative 7 || remedies prior to filing suit is due to interference by prison officials with his efforts to complete 8 || the exhaustion process, thus making the exhaustion of administrative remedies unavailable to 9 | Plaintiff.”). 10 As stated above and in the order to show cause, the failure to exhaust is an affirmative 11 | defense that plaintiffs must plead and prove. Jones v. Bock,

(2007); see (Doc. 4 12 | at 2). Thus, the Court makes no finding as to Plaintiff’s access, recourse to, and exhaustion of 13 | administrative remedies at this stage of the proceedings, which may properly be addressed should 14 | this case proceed following screening of the complaint. See Creamer,

, at *1; 15 | e.g., Kile v. Doerer, Case No. 1:24-cv-01177-KES-SAB (PC),

, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 16 | Feb. 25, 2025) (“[B]ecause exhaustion of the administrative remedies is an affirmative defense, 17 | the Court makes no ruling as to whether Plaintiff has, in fact, exhausted the administrative 18 | remedies.”); Benanti v. Doerer, No. 1:24-CV-01108-CDB (PC),

, at *2—3 (E.D. 19 | Cal. May 6, 2025) (same). 20 Plaintiff’s complaint will be screened in due course. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 21 IV. Conclusion and Order 22 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the findings and recommendations issued on 23 | September 30, 2025 (Doc. 6), are VACATED. 24 Plaintiff’s complaint will be screened in due course. 25 | IT IS SO ORDERED. 76 | Dated: _ October 20, 2025 | Wr bo 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28