Haines v. Sanchez
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:23-cv-04452
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Haines v. Sanchez, Judge Martinez-Olguin ordered Haines to show cause within 28 days before deciding whether to dismiss his federal claim without prejudice.
Joey L. Haines’s federal civil-rights claim is at risk of dismissal without prejudice because the court found that he had not shown exhaustion of available prison administrative remedies. Sheriff Sanchez and the other defendants remain involved in the case unless the claim is later dismissed.
What happened
In Haines v. Sanchez, Joey L. Haines, a prisoner representing himself, sued Sheriff Sanchez and others under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that an incident on January 5, 2023 violated his constitutional protection against unsafe prison conditions.
The court found that Haines had not shown he completed the required prison grievance process before filing his federal claim. The court did not dismiss the claim immediately; instead, it gave him 28 days to explain why the claim should not be dismissed without prejudice for failing to complete that process.
Judge Martinez-Olguin ordered that the claim will be dismissed without prejudice if Haines does not respond. The order also required him to follow court deadlines, keep the court informed of any address change, and serve his communications on the defendants.
The detailed version
- Haines v. Sanchez · No. 3:23-cv-04452
- Martinez-Olguin
- Jan. 9, 2024
Background
Joey L. Haines, who was in custody at Santa Rita Jail, filed a complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that an incident on January 5, 2023 involved deliberate indifference to his safety and violated the Eighth Amendment. The complaint named Sheriff Sanchez and other defendants.
The court conducted its required initial screening of a prisoner complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening requires the court to identify claims that may proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant.
Exhaustion Requirement
The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires a prisoner to complete available administrative remedies before bringing a federal lawsuit about prison conditions. Proper exhaustion requires pursuing each available step and following the prison system’s deadlines and other procedural rules. Completing the process after filing the lawsuit does not cure a failure to exhaust beforehand.
The court concluded that Haines had not alleged that he exhausted the administrative process for his federal claim. Haines stated that he received “no response” at the second formal level of review, and he did not attach prison grievance materials to his complaint. The court also stated that he had not shown extraordinary circumstances that would excuse compliance with the exhaustion requirement.
Order
The court did not enter the threatened dismissal at this stage. It gave Haines one final opportunity to show cause within 28 days why his federal claim should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust. The order states that failing to respond will result in dismissal without prejudice. It also directs Haines to serve communications on the defendants, prosecute the case, report any address change, and comply with court orders and deadlines.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin issued the order on January 9, 2024.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.