(PC) Lanier v. Doerer, 1:24-cv-01178

Plaintiff Kareem Lanier, a federal inmate at USP-Atwater, filed a Bivens civil rights action pro se, alleging violations of his First, Fifth, and Eighth Amendment rights related to a prison lockdown from August 9, 2024, to October 9, 2024.
Lanier claims he was denied access to administrative remedy forms, medical care, communication with loved ones and counsel, and other essential services during the lockdown.
Plaintiff admitted in his complaint that he did not exhaust prison administrative remedies before filing suit, stating that the remedies were unavailable to him during the lockdown.
The Court reviewed both Lanier’s First Amended Complaint and his motion explaining his failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
The key procedural issue is whether Lanier can be excused from the mandatory exhaustion requirement under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) due to the alleged unavailability of remedies during the lockdown, and whether he should have pursued remedies after the lockdown ended.
The Court acknowledged the filings but ordered Lanier to show cause within 14 days why his case should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, noting potential deficiencies in his explanation under applicable law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Must inmate exhaust remedies before filing suit under PLRA?	Remedies were unavailable during lockdown and thus exhaustion should be excused.	Administrative remedies must be exhausted unless truly unavailable.	Tentative finding: Failure to exhaust; must show cause why suit shouldn't be dismissed.
Does temporary unavailability of forms excuse exhaustion?	Temporary unavailability should excuse exhaustion requirement.	Only prolonged, systematic unavailability excuses exhaustion; temporary unavailability requires later exhaustion when possible.	Temporary unavailability during lockdown does not excuse failure to exhaust after lockdown.
Did the Plaintiff have the opportunity to exhaust after lockdown before filing?	Claims continuation of unavailability, no specifics after lockdown.	Plaintiff could have used grievance process after lockdown, before lawsuit.	No adequate excuse provided for not exhausting after lockdown; ordered to show cause.
Is the Court requiring proof of exhaustion at pleading stage?	Not required to prove exhaustion at pleading; cites Jones v. Bock.	Plaintiff must provide valid excuse for non-exhaustion if failure is apparent on face of complaint.	Court requests explanation for non-exhaustion, not proof; finding argument unpersuasive.

Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (Supreme Court: failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense; prisoners not required to plead exhaustion, but complaint may be dismissed when failure is clear on the face)
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (Supreme Court: PLRA requires proper exhaustion of all available administrative remedies before suit)
Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632 (Supreme Court: exhaustion required unless remedies truly unavailable, defines circumstances of unavailability)
Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (Supreme Court: exhaustion requirement applies to all prisoner suits about prison life)
Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir.: burden-shifting in exhaustion defense; prisoner must show remedies were unavailable)