Quinonez v. Pioneer Medical Center et al

Filing 28

ORDER Providing Plaintiff Notice Of Defendants' Motion To Dismiss Pursuant To Wyatt v. Terhune And Setting Briefing Schedule (Re Doc. 25 ): Plaintiff's Opposition due by 6/7/2013. Replies due by 6/21/2013. At that time, the Court will cons ider the matter fully briefed as submitted on the papers and will thereafter issue a written Report and Recommendation. Unless otherwise ordered, no appearances are required on the date set for hearing and no oral argument will be held. Signed by Magistrate Judge David H. Bartick on 4/19/2013. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service.)(mdc)(jrd)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SIXTO NAVARRETTE QUINONEZ,
Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

PIONEER MEDICAL CENTER, et al.,

14

Defendants.

Civil No.

12-cv-0629-WQH (DHB)

ORDER PROVIDING PLAINTIFF
NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS
PURSUANT TO WYATT V.
TERHUNE AND SETTING
BRIEFING SCHEDULE

15
16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed
pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

18

Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule

19

of Civil Procedure 12(b). (ECF No. 25.) Defendants argue Plaintiff has failed to exhaust

20

administrative remedies prior to suit as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Defendants

21

alternatively argue that this action should be transferred to the Central District of

22

California.

23

“[A] motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is similar to

24

a motion for summary judgment in that the district court will consider documents beyond

25

the pleadings.” Stratton v. Buck, 697 F.3d 1004, 1009 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Wyatt v.

26

Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2003) (“In deciding a motion to dismiss for

27

a failure to exhaust nonjudicial remedies, the court may look beyond the pleadings and

28

decide disputed issues of fact.”) (citing Ritza v. Int’l Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s
-1-

12cv629-WQH (DHB)

1

Union, 837 F.2d 365, 369 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam)).

2

If the court looks beyond the pleadings “in deciding the motion to dismiss for

3

failure to exhaust -- a procedure closely analogous to summary judgment -- then the court

4

must assure that [the plaintiff] has fair notice of his opportunity to develop a record.”

5

Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1120 n.14; see also Marella v. Terhune, 568 F.3d 1024, 1028 (9th Cir.

6

2009) (remanding case to district court where court failed to “effectively give [plaintiff]

7

fair notice that he should have submitted evidence regarding exhaustion of administrative

8

remedies.”).

9

Accordingly, Plaintiff is hereby provided with notice that Defendants have filed

10

a motion which asks the Court to dismiss his case (or part of it) because he failed to

11

exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). See Woods v. Carey,

12

684 F.3d 934, 936, 939 (9th Cir. 2012). Plaintiff should include in his Opposition to

13

Defendants’ Motion whatever arguments, evidentiary material or documents he may have

14

to show that he did, in fact, exhaust all administrative remedies as were available to him

15

prior to filing suit. See Stratton, 697 F.3d at 1008 (noting plaintiff has the “right to file

16

counter-affidavits or other responsive evidentiary materials” which is relevant to show

17

the administrative exhaustion of his claims); Marella, 568 F.3d at 1028; Wyatt, 315 F.3d

18

at 1119-21.

19

If Defendants’ Motion and supporting proof is sufficient to show that Plaintiff has

20

failed to exhaust, and Plaintiff fails to develop the record by providing evidence to the

21

contrary, his unexhausted claims will be dismissed without prejudice and he will not be

22

able to proceed as to those claims in this action. See Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1120 (“If the

23

district court concludes that the prisoner has not exhausted nonjudicial remedies, the

24

proper remedy is dismissal of the claim without prejudice.”).
Conclusion and Order

25
26

Accordingly, the Court sets the following briefing schedule:

27

1.

28

Plaintiff, if he chooses, may file an Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss or in the alternative Motion to Transfer Venue, which includes evidentiary
-2-

12cv629-WQH (DHB)

1

material related to the exhaustion of his claims, and serve it upon Defendants’ counsel

2

of record no later than June 7, 2013.

3
4

2.

Defendants may file a Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition, and serve it upon

Plaintiff no later than June 21, 2013.

5

At that time, the Court will consider the matter fully briefed as submitted on the

6

papers and will thereafter issue a written Report and Recommendation. Unless otherwise

7

ordered, no appearances are required on the date set for hearing and no oral argument will

8

be held. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 7.1.d.1.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 19, 2013

11
12

DAVID H. BARTICK
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

12cv629-WQH (DHB)