Background:

• Plaintiff Julian Moz-Aguilar, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se under Bivens, filed this civil rights complaint on June 3, 2021.
• The Complaint on its face indicates Moz-Aguilar did not complete the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) administrative remedy process before filing suit.
• Moz-Aguilar asserts he submitted an "administrative tort claim" and attached the tort claim and a BOP response dated March 26, 2021 to the Complaint.
• He also alleges that no administrative remedies are available at his institution.
• The court finds the complaint shows possible failure to exhaust and therefore may be subject to dismissal under the PLRA.
• The court ordered Moz-Aguilar to show cause within 30 days why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust; failure to respond may result in dismissal.

Issues:

Key Cases Cited

• Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (establishing Bivens damages action)
• Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (PLRA requires prisoners to exhaust available administrative remedies before filing suit)
• Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (exhaustion required regardless of relief sought)
• Porter v. Nussle, 435 U.S. 516 (exhaustion requirement applies to all suits about prison life)
• Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (failure to exhaust clear from complaint may justify dismissal)
• Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108 (prisoner concession of nonexhaustion is a dismissal ground)
• Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903 (dismissal under §1915A uses Rule 12(b)(6) standard)
• Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113 (standards for dismissal under §1915A)
• McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198 (prisoners must exhaust remedies prior to filing)
• Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217 (describing BOP multi-level administrative remedy process)