Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00993/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00993-1/pdf.json

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TUANJA EDWARD ANDERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. HERNANDEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 15cv993-BEN (BLM)

ORDER PROVIDING PLAINTIFF

NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE

FAILURE TO EXHAUST

ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

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. Defendants filed a pre-answer motion for

summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Albino v. Baca,

747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). ECF Nos. 24 at 2; 24-2 at 1, 4-10. In his

motion, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has “failed to exhaust his administrative remedies

as to all claims and Defendants in his Complaint,” as required by the Prison Litigation

Reform Act (“PLRA”). See id.; see also 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

“The PLRA mandates that inmates exhaust all available administrative remedies

before filing ‘any suit challenging prison conditions,’ including, but not limited to, suits

under § 1983.” Albino, 747 F.3d at 1171 (citing Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85 (2006)). 

“Exhaustion should be decided, if feasible, before reaching the merits of a prisoner’s

15cv993-BEN (BLM)

Case 3:15-cv-00993-BEN-BLM Document 25 Filed 11/10/15 Page 1 of 3
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

claim.” Albino, 747 F.3d at 1170. The Ninth Circuit has held that “the appropriate

procedural device for pretrial determination of whether administrative remedies have been

exhausted under the PLRA . . . is a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56.” Id. at

1168. 

Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure tells you what you must do in order

to oppose a motion for summary judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be

granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact. In other words, if there is no real

dispute about any fact that would affect the result of your case, then the party who asked

for summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will end your

case. When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary judgment that is properly

supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot simply rely on what your

complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in declarations, depositions,

answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as provided by Rule 56(c), that

contradict the facts shown in the defendant’s declarations and documents and show that

there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do not submit your own evidence

in opposition, summary judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against you. If summary

judgment is granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial as to the

defendant who prevailed on summary judgment.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is hereby provided with notice that Defendants have asked the

Court to find, as a matter of law, that 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 related to

his claims as were available to him prior to filing suit. See Marella v. Terhune, 568 F.3d

1024, 1028 (9th Cir. 2009) (a district court must “effectively give [plaintiff] fair notice that

he should have submitted evidence regarding exhaustion of remedies.”). 

The Court cautions Plaintiff that if he does not submit his own evidence in

opposition, summary judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against him. If summary

2 15cv993-BEN (BLM)

Case 3:15-cv-00993-BEN-BLM Document 25 Filed 11/10/15 Page 2 of 3
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

judgment is granted, his unexhausted claims will be dismissed and there will be no trial on

the merits as to his unexhausted claims.

Defendants’ motion is set for hearing on January 11, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. in

Courtroom 1B. Accordingly, your opposition (including any supporting documents) must

be filed and served on Defendants’ counsel by December 16, 2015. If you do not wish

to oppose Defendants’ motion, you should file and serve a “Notice of Non-Opposition” by

that same date to let the Court know that Defendants’ motion is unopposed. If you do file

and serve an opposition, Defendants must file and serve his reply to your opposition by

January 4, 2016. At the time set for hearing, the Court will consider Defendants’ motion

fully briefed as submitted on the papers. Unless otherwise ordered, no appearances are

required on the date set for hearing and no oral argument will be heard. See S.D. CAL.

CIVLR 7.1.d.1.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 10, 2015

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

3 15cv993-BEN (BLM)

Case 3:15-cv-00993-BEN-BLM Document 25 Filed 11/10/15 Page 3 of 3