Williams v. Steglinski et al

Filing 37

ORDER GRANTING Defendants' 33 Request to Withdraw, Without Prejudice, the Portion of Pending Motion to Dismiss Relating to Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies, and Re-File Within Thirty Days as Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 4/29/2014. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GARY WILLIAMS, 12 13 14 Plaintiff, v. S. STEGLINSKI, et. al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:12-cv-00786-AWI-SAB (PC) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST TO WITHDRAW, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE PORTION OF PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS RELATING TO EXHAUSTION OF ADMININSTRATIVE REMEDIES, AND RE-FILE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS AS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 33) Plaintiff Gary Williams is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 Now pending before the Court is Defendants Horton, Kaur, and Epperson’s request to convert 20 the motion to dismiss into motion for summary judgment; or to withdraw motion, and permit filing of 21 a motion for summary judgment in lieu of answer. (ECF No. 33.) 22 On February 21, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that (1) the 23 complaint fails to state a cognizable claim for relief against Epperson and Horton, and defendants are 24 entitled to qualified immunity and should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules 25 of Civil Procedure and (2) Plaintiff failed to exhaust the administrative remedies prior to filing suit, as 26 required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) as to the claims against 27 Epperson, Horton, and Kaur. (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff filed an opposition on April 23, 2014. (ECF 28 No. 34.) 1 1 At the time Defendants filed their motion, Defendants were required to raise the issue of 2 exhaustion of administrative remedies by way of an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss under 3 Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). Defendants provided Plaintiff with the 4 “Wyatt notice” advising him of the requirements for opposing a motion to dismiss for failure to 5 exhaust. (ECF No. 18.) 6 On April 3, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in 7 Albino v. Baca, No. 10-55702, 2014 WL 1317141, at *1 (9th Cir. April 3, 2014) (en banc), overruling 8 Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003) with respect to the proper procedural device 9 for raising the issue of administrative exhaustion. Following the rationale set forth in Albino, 10 Defendants may raise the issue of exhaustion in either (1) a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 11 12(b)(6), in the rare event the failure to exhaust is clear on the face of the complaint, or (2) a motion 12 for summary judgment. Albino, 2014 WL 1317141, at *4 (quotation marks omitted). An 13 unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion is no longer the proper procedural device for raising the issue of 14 exhaustion. Id. Defendants request that the Court either issue an order converting the motion to dismiss for 15 16 failure to exhaust into a motion for summary judgment, and provide Plaintiff with the notice pursuant 17 to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), or allow them to withdraw the portion of the 18 motion to dismiss relating to exhaustion, to renew by way of motion for summary judgment within 19 thirty days. In light of the decision in Albino, the Court will grant Defendants’ request to withdraw 20 the motion to dismiss relating to exhaustion without prejudice, and re-file a motion for summary 21 judgment within thirty days. 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. Defendants’ request to withdraw the motion to dismiss without prejudice is GRANTED; and 4 5 2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Defendants may file a motion for summary judgment. 6 7 8 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 29, 2014 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?