Mack v. San Mateo County
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:22-cv-00775
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Mack v. San Mateo County, Judge Rogers dismissed Major Mack’s civil-rights case without prejudice because he did not exhaust prison remedies.
Major Mack’s lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice, while the order closed the case file; the opinion does not decide the underlying civil-rights claims.
What happened
In Mack v. San Mateo County, Major Mack, a prisoner representing himself, filed a civil-rights lawsuit against San Mateo County and others under a federal civil-rights law.
The court had ordered Mack to explain why the case should not be dismissed because he had not completed the prison grievance process before filing suit. Mack did not respond by the deadline.
Judge Rogers dismissed the case without prejudice and directed the clerk to close the file. The order allows Mack to refile the claim in a new case after satisfying the exhaustion requirement.
The detailed version
- Mack v. San Mateo County · No. 4:22-cv-00775
- Yvonne Rogers
- June 3, 2022
Background
Major Mack, an inmate at Maguire Correctional Facility, filed a civil-rights complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint named San Mateo County and other defendants.
On April 25, 2022, the court ordered Mack to show cause—meaning to explain—within 28 days why the action should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court warned that failing to respond would result in dismissal without prejudice. The deadline passed, and Mack did not file a timely response.
Legal standard
The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires a prisoner to complete available administrative remedies, such as a prison grievance process, before bringing a lawsuit about prison conditions under § 1983 or another federal law. The court stated that this exhaustion requirement is mandatory. It also explained that a case may be dismissed without prejudice when the record shows that the prisoner did not exhaust available remedies before filing suit.
The court concluded that the complaint itself showed Mack had not exhausted his administrative remedies before filing. Because he did not respond to the order to show cause, he did not provide a sufficient reason to excuse that requirement.
Ruling
Judge Yvonne Rogers dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The order states that Mack may refile his claim in a new case after meeting the exhaustion requirement. The clerk was directed to close the file.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.