Brown v. Harris et al

Filing 43

ORDER GRANTING 41 Defendants' Request to Withdraw Argument From Motion to Dismiss, Without Prejudice and ORDER Withdrawing Defendants' Argument Based on Exhaustion of Remedies From Motion to Dismiss signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 5/7/2014. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CORNELL BROWN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

1:12-cv-01472-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
REQUEST TO WITHDRAW ARGUMENT
FROM MOTION TO DISMISS, WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
(Doc. 41.)

vs.
R. HARRIS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

ORDER WITHDRAWING DEFENDANTS’
ARGUMENT BASED ON EXHAUSTION
OF REMEDIES FROM MOTION TO
DISMISS
(Doc. 22.)

16
17
18
19
20

I.

BACKGROUND
Cornell Brown (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

21

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983.

22

Plaintiff’s initial Complaint filed on September 10, 2012, against defendant Harris for

23

excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and defendant Nelson for failure to

24

protect Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 1.)

This case now proceeds on

25

On December 6, 2013, defendants Harris and Nelson (“Defendants”) filed a Motion to

26

Dismiss which included an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss this action for failure to

27

exhaust administrative remedies, and a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a

28

claim on the grounds that Plaintiff’s claims for relief under § 1983 are barred by Heck v.
1

1

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) and Edwards v. Balisok, 502 U.S. 641, 648 (1997). (Doc. 22.)

2

On January 27, 2014, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the Motion. (Doc. 27.) On February 3,

3

2014, Defendants filed a reply to Plaintiff’s opposition. (Doc. 29.)

4

On April 30, 2014, Defendants filed a Request to Withdraw their argument based on

5

exhaustion of remedies from the Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 41.)

6

II.

REQUEST TO WITHDRAW ARGUMENT

7

Defendants request to withdraw from their Motion to Dismiss the argument that

8

Defendant Nelson should be dismissed from this lawsuit because Plaintiff failed to exhaust

9

CDCR’s administrative grievance process as to Defendant Nelson before filing this case, as

10

well as the Declaration of J. Zamora in support of the argument, in light of the recent decision

11

in Albino v. Baca, No. 10-55702, 2014 WL 1317141, at *1 (9th Cir. Apr. 3, 2014) (en banc).

12

Defendants request that their argument be withdrawn without prejudice to bringing the

13

argument in a motion for summary judgment, in the event that the Motion to Dismiss is not

14

resolved in their favor.

15

Discussion

16

On April 3, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling in Albino,

17

overruling Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003), finding that exhaustion

18

issues are more appropriately handled under the Federal Rules’ explicit provisions, and

19

requiring Defendants to raise the exhaustion defense under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56,

20

via a motion for summary judgment. Albino at *1.
In light of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Albino, and good cause appearing,

21
22

Defendants’ request to withdraw their argument shall be granted.

23

IV.

CONCLUSION

24

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

25

1.

Defendants’ Motion to Withdraw, filed on April 30, 2014, is GRANTED; and

26

2.

Defendants’ argument based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative

27

remedies, and the Declaration of J. Zamora in support of Defendants’ argument,

28

are WITHDRAWN from the Motion to Dismiss filed on December 6, 2013,
2

1

without prejudice to renewal of the argument in a motion for summary

2

judgment.

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 7, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
3