Williams v. Cates et al

Filing 47

ORDER GRANTING 45 Defendants' Request for Clarification Regarding Responsive Pleading Status and ORDER Modifying Order of August 11, 2014 (Doc. 44 ) signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 9/2/2014. Only Defendant Lopez is required to answer the complaint. Defendant Lopez's answer due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

HORACE MANN WILLIAMS,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
vs.
MARISOL, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:12cv00730 LJO DLB PC
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION
REGARDING RESPONSIVE PLEADING
STATUS
[ECF No. 45]
ORDER MODIFYING ORDER OF
AUGUST 11, 2014
[ECF No. 44]

Plaintiff Horace Mann Williams (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983.
On October 9, 2013, Defendants Agu, Valdivia, Sica, and Trimble filed a motion to
dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the grounds that the complaint

21

failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted, and under the unenumerated provisions of
22
23
24
25

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust
administrative remedies before filing suit. On March 26, 2014, Defendant Lopez filed a motion
to dismiss, only under unenumerated Rule 12(b), for failure to exhaust.

26

Following the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014),

27

the Court issued an Order converting the exhaustion portions of Defendants’ motions to dismiss

28

in a motion for summary judgment.
1

1
2
3
4

On August 11, 2014, the Court issued an Order directing Defendants to file an answer to
the complaint within thirty days. The Order did not address the portion of the Defendants’
motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). On August 15, 2014, Defendants filed the instant request
for clarification.

5

Defendants are informed that the Court considers the motion to dismiss under Rule
6
7
8
9
10

12(b)(6) to be the pending responsive pleading as to Defendants Agu, Valdivia, Sica and
Trimble. The motion will be addressed in the near future. At this time, a responsive pleading is
only required as to Defendant Lopez.
Accordingly, the Court hereby MODIFIES its prior Order of August 11, 2014, to reflect

11

that only Defendant Lopez is required to answer the complaint. In light of the confusion,

12

Defendant Lopez is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of service of this Order to answer

13

the complaint.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

September 2, 2014

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2