Miller v. Rutledge et al

Filing 12

ORDER PROVIDING PLAINTIFF NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO WYATT V. TERHUNE. Plaintiffs' Response is due by 4/11/2011, Replies due by 4/18/2011 as to 11 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint. At that time, the Court will c onsider the matter fully briefed as submitted on the papers and will thereafter issue a written Order. No appearances by the parties are required. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 3/21/2011.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(leh) (jcj).

-NLS Miller v. Rutledge et al

Doc. 12

1 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 LEWAYNE LEE MILLER, CDCR #J-64930, Civil No.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10-1902 MMA (NLS)

Plaintiff, vs. S. RUTLEDGE; D. RUSH; J. PARTIDA; R. LOPEZ, Defendants. LeWayne Lee Miller ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison located in Delano, California, and proceeding in pro se, has filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b). Defendants argue Plaintiff has failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to suit as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). "In deciding a motion to dismiss for a failure to exhaust nonjudicial remedies, the court may look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact." Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Ritza v. Int'l Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, 837 F.2d 365, 369 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam)). If the court looks beyond the pleadings when deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust, "a procedure
-110cv1902 MMA (NLS)

ORDER PROVIDING PLAINTIFF NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO WYATT v. TERHUNE

Dockets.Justia.com

1 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

closely analogous to summary judgment," the Court "must assure that [the plaintiff] has fair notice of his opportunity to develop a record." Id. at 1120 n.14; see also Marella v. Terhune, 568 F.3d 1024, 1028 (9th Cir. 2009) (remanding case to district court where court failed to "effectively give [plaintiff] fair notice that he should have submitted evidence regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies"). Accordingly, Plaintiff is hereby provided with notice that Defendants have asked the Court to dismiss his case because he failed to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Plaintiff is further advised of his opportunity to include in his Opposition to Defendants' Motion whatever arguments and documentary evidence he may have to show that he did, in fact, exhaust all administrative remedies as were available to him prior to filing suit. See Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119-21; Marella, 568 F.3d at 1028. Plaintiff is further advised he may file an Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and serve it upon Defendants' counsel of record no later than April 11, 2011. Defendants may file a Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition, and serve it upon Plaintiff no later than April 18, 2011. At that time, the Court will consider the matter fully briefed as submitted on the papers and will thereafter issue a written Order. No appearances by the parties are required. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 7.1.d.1. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: March 21, 2011

Hon. Michael M. Anello United States District Judge

-2-

10cv1902 MMA (NLS)