Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-06324/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-06324-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALVIN RONNELL ROSS,

Plaintiff,

v.

VICKIE McCOY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:99-CV-6324-REC-LJO-P

NOTICE OF REQUIREMENTS FOR

OPPOSING UNENUMERATED RULE 12(B)

MOTIONS

ORDER ALLOWING PLAINTIFF THIRTY

DAYS WITHIN WHICH TO SUPPLEMENT

HIS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO

EXHAUST

(Doc. 97)

Pursuant to Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n.14 (9th Cir. 2003), plaintiff is hereby

provided with the following notice: 

Defendants have moved to dismiss the action in its entirety for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies. The failure to exhaust administrative remedies is subject to an

unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss. Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119 (citing Ritza v. Int’l

Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union, 837 F.2d 365, 368 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curium)). “In

deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust nonjudicial remedies, the court may look beyond

the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact.” Wyatt, 837 F.3d at 1119-20 (quoting Ritza, 837

F.2d at 368). If the district court concludes that the prisoner has not exhausted administrative

remedies, the case will be dismissed without prejudice. Wyatt, 837 F.3d at 1120. This means that

///

Case 1:99-cv-06324-REC-LJO Document 109 Filed 06/29/05 Page 1 of 2
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

2

the case will end. If plaintiff exhausts administrative remedies at a later date, he may file the case

as a new action. 

When defendants make an unenumerated 12(b) motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies, plaintiff may not simply rely on allegations in the complaint. Instead,

plaintiff must oppose the motion by setting forth specific facts in declaration(s) and other evidence

regarding the exhaustion of administrative remedies. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 43(e); Ritza v. Int’l

Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union, 837 F.2d 365, 369 (9th Cir. 1988). If plaintiff does not

submit his own evidence in opposition, the court may conclude that plaintiff has not exhausted

administrative remedies and the case will be dismissed.

On November 12, 2004, defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust or in the

alternative for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion on January 13, 2005.

Because plaintiff was not previously provided with notice of the requirements for opposing an

unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion, the court must provide plaintiff with the opportunity to

supplement his opposition to defendants’ motion. Plaintiff is not required to supplement his

opposition. However, if plaintiff opts to supplement his opposition, he must do so within thirty days.

Further, plaintiff is limited to addressing defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust.

Plaintiff may not supplement his opposition to include further argument pertaining to defendants’

motion for summary judgment. 

Accordingly, 

1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff may

supplement his opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss if he wishes to do so; and

2. If plaintiff opts to supplement his opposition, plaintiff is limited to addressing

defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust and may not include further

argument pertaining to defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 28, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:99-cv-06324-REC-LJO Document 109 Filed 06/29/05 Page 2 of 2