Background

• Plaintiff Jared Andrew Martin, a county jail inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a § 1983 complaint arising from events at Kern Valley State Prison (KVSP); the complaint was docketed Aug. 11, 2022.
• Martin admitted in the complaint that he did not exhaust administrative remedies and stated (without detail) that he was not required to because he had been transferred out of KVSP.
• The magistrate judge cited the PLRA exhaustion requirement for prison-condition claims and summarized the Supreme Court’s availability exceptions in Ross v. Blake.
• The court found Martin’s unexplained transfer-based excuse factually insufficient and identified missing facts: dates of the alleged violations, the date of transfer from KVSP, and subsequent locations/dates after leaving KVSP.
• Because the complaint lacks sufficient factual support to show exhaustion was unavailable, the court ordered Martin to show cause by January 3, 2024 why the case should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust.
• Order signed Dec. 4, 2023 by United States Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014) (PLRA requires exhaustion of administrative remedies for prison-condition suits)
• Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (exhaustion requirement applies to suits challenging prison conditions)
• Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632 (2016) (defines when administrative remedies are unavailable and therefore need not be exhausted)
• Medina-Claudio v. Rodriguez-Mateo, 292 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2002) (transfer does not automatically excuse exhaustion)
• McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2002) (applies same principle regarding transfer and exhaustion)