McCoy v. Stratton et al
Filing
77
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 11/02/16 denying 66 Motion to Strike. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DAVON E. McCOY,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:12-cv-1137 WBS DB
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
J. STRATTON, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief
18
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants moved for summary judgment based on plaintiff’s alleged
19
failure to exhaust his available administrative remedies prior to filing suit as required. (ECF No.
20
36.) United States District Judge William B. Shubb adopted the findings and recommendations
21
of then-Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd in granting in part and denying in part defendants’
22
motion. (ECF No. 44.) In their summary judgment motion, defendants requested permission to
23
file a second motion for summary judgment on the merits if the first one concerning exhaustion
24
was not granted in full. (ECF No. 36 at 6 n. 1.) The court did not address that request in the
25
findings and recommendation or the order on summary judgment.
26
After filing an answer (ECF No. 45) to plaintiff’s complaint, defendants filed a second
27
motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 51) addressing the merits of plaintiff’s complaint.
28
Plaintiff filed an opposition (ECF No. 64) to the motion, but also filed a motion to strike (ECF
1
1
No. 66) the second summary judgment for failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil
2
Procedure and the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California.
3
For the following reasons, plaintiff’s motion to strike is denied.
4
District courts in the Ninth Circuit “have discretion to permit successive motions for
5
summary judgment.” Hoffman v. Tonnemacher, 593 F.3d 908, 911 (9th Cir. 2010). “[A]
6
successive motion for summary judgment is particularly appropriate on an expanded factual
7
record.” Id. Furthermore, where a district court addresses only the issue of exhaustion of
8
administrative remedies in the first summary judgment motion, “‘allowing a party to file a second
9
motion for summary judgment is logical, and it fosters the just, speedy, and inexpensive
10
resolution of suits.’” Hill v. Davis, --- F. App’x ---, No. 15–15923, 2016 WL 4499806 (9th Cir.
11
Aug. 26, 2016) (quoting Hoffman, 593 F.3d at 911-12).
Plaintiff’s motion to strike is denied because the first summary judgment motion in this
12
13
matter addressed only the administrative remedies issue. In Albino v. Baca, the Ninth Circuit
14
recently held that “[e]xhaustion should be decided, if feasible, before reaching the merits of a
15
prisoner’s claim,” and that a summary judgment motion may be “directed solely to the issue of
16
exhaustion.” 747 F.3d 1162, 1170 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). Pursuant to Albino, the court
17
addressed the administrative remedies issue at the outset without considering the merits of the
18
case. Now, pursuant to Hoffman, the court has discretion to allow a second motion for summary
19
judgment based upon an expanded record. There is now an expanded record on which to address
20
the merits of the case, so, accordingly, the court grants defendants’ request to file a second
21
summary judgment on the merits and denies plaintiff’s motion to strike. The court will address
22
the second motion for summary judgment in a forthcoming findings and recommendations.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to strike is denied.
23
24
Dated: November 2, 2016
25
26
27
28
DLB:10
2
1
DLB1 / Prisoner - Civil Rights / mcco1137.mts
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
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?