Navarro v. Herdon et al
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 04/16/14 denying 107 Motion to Dismiss. Defendant may file and serve within 30 days after the filing date of this order, a motion for summary judgment that includes notice to plaintiff of the evidentiary requirements for opposing the motion. Due to the patchwork nature of briefing on the prior motion to dismiss 140 (designating 3 documents as portions of plaintiff's surreply), neither defendants nor plaintiff may rely on evidence previously submitted in this action. Rather defenants may file 1 motion and a reply (optional), and plaintiff may file 1 opposition but no surreply; these respective briefs shall includes all of the parties' evidence. Finally plaintiff is admonished to stop filing errant motions and requests in this action. (Plummer, M)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 2:09-cv-1878 KJM KJN P
DEBRA HERNDON, et al.,
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Albino v. Baca, __ F.3d __, 2014 WL 1344468
(9th Cir. Apr. 7, 2014) (en banc), recently held that a motion for summary judgment pursuant to
Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, not an “unenumerated 12(b) motion” to dismiss, is the
appropriate vehicle for challenging a prisoner’s claims based on an alleged failure to exhaust
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, currently
pending in this action (ECF No. 107), is denied without prejudice.
2. Defendant may file and serve, within thirty (30) days after the filing date of this order,
a motion for summary judgment that includes notice to plaintiff of the evidentiary requirements
for opposing the motion. See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2012); Rand v. Rowland,
154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998). Such motion shall be briefed in accordance with Local Rule
3. Due to the patchwork nature of briefing on the prior motion to dismiss (see e.g. ECF
No. 140 (designating three documents as portions of plaintiff’s surreply)), neither defendants nor
plaintiff may rely on evidence previously submitted in this action. Rather, defendants may file
one motion and a reply (optional), and plaintiff may file one opposition but no surreply; these
respective briefs shall include all of the parties’ evidence.
4. Finally, plaintiff is admonished to stop filing errant motions and requests in this action.
(See e.g. ECF No. 141 (request for court intervention); ECF No. 142 (notice of obstruction); ECF
No. 143 (request for order allowing new evidence).) Plaintiff is cautioned that a litigant
proceeding in forma pauperis may suffer restricted access to the court where it is determined that
he has filed excessive motions in a pending action. DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144 (9th
Cir. 1990); see also Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F2d 351, 352 (10th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff has filed
excessive motions and requests in this action. If plaintiff does not exercise appropriate restraint
in the future, by limiting his filings only to authorized matters, the court will expressly consider
whether to restrict plaintiff’s access to the court for the remainder of this litigation.
Dated: April 16, 2014
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?