Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01299/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01299-18/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAHN G. THOMPSON, 

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:07-cv-01299-LJO-GSA-PC

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S 

SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION

(Doc. 72.)

ORDER OF CLARIFICATION, PERMITTING

PLAINTIFF OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW

OPPOSITION AND FILE AMENDED

OPPOSITION IN LIGHT OF SEPARATELY

ISSUED NOTICE

(Doc. 61.)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

ORDER VACATING MOTION TO DISMISS

FROM COURT’S CALENDAR TO ALLOW 

TIME FOR AMENDMENT OF OPPOSITION

AND REPLY

(Doc. 52.)

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Rahn G. Thompson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint

commencing this action on September 5, 2007. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds with the Second

Amended Complaint filed on November 10, 2009, against defendant Tucker for subjecting Plaintiff

to adverse conditions of confinement; against defendants Tucker, Green, Lee, Rincon, Hernandez,

Deathridge, and Huckabay for failing to protect Plaintiff; against defendants Tucker, Green, and

1

Case 1:07-cv-01299-LJO-GSA Document 77 Filed 08/23/12 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

Huckabay for retaliating against Plaintiff; and against defendants Tucker, Thompson, and Melendez

for using excessive force against Plaintiff. (Doc. 25.)

On September 27, 2011, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss this action for failure to

exhaust administrative remedies and for failure to state a claim for retaliation. (Doc. 52.) Plaintiff

filed an opposition on November 21, 2011. (Doc. 61.) On December 6, 2011, Defendants filed (1)

a reply to the opposition and (2) objections to Plaintiff’s evidence submitted in support of his

opposition. (Docs. 66, 67.) On February 1, 2012, Plaintiff filed (1) a response to Defendants’

objections and (2) a supplemental opposition to the motion to dismiss. (Docs. 71, 72.)

On July 10, 2012, the Court directed the Clerk to re-serve the Second Informational Order

upon Plaintiff. (Doc. 75.) On July 27, 2012, Plaintiff responded to the re-served Second

Informational Order, requesting clarification from the Court. (Doc. 76.)

II. PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION

Plaintiff has submitted an opposition and a supplemental opposition to Defendants’ motion

to dismiss. The Court will not consider multiple oppositions. Therefore, Plaintiff’s supplemental

opposition shall be stricken as an unauthorized pleading. Plaintiff shall be granted an opportunity

to file an amended opposition, if he so wishes.

III. ORDER OF CLARIFICATION

Plaintiff requests clarification of the Court’s decision to re-serve the Second Informational

Order. Plaintiff explains that he sent the Court his opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss and

is now uncertain whether he is expected to file other documents.

The Court re-served the Second Informational Order upon Plaintiff in light of the recent

decision in Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940 (9th Cir. 2012). In Woods, the Ninth Circuit held

that Plaintiff must be provided with “fair notice” of the requirements for opposing a motion to

dismiss for failure to exhaust remedies at the time the motion is brought. The notice given in this

case more than a year ago does not suffice. 

Plaintiff is not required to file other documents in opposition to the motion to dismiss. 

However, in light of Woods, Plaintiff shall be permitted the opportunity to file an amended

opposition, if he so wishes.

2

Case 1:07-cv-01299-LJO-GSA Document 77 Filed 08/23/12 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

By separate order entitled “Amended Second Informational Order - Notice and Warning of

Requirements for Opposing Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss,” issued concurrently with this order,

the Court has again provided the requisite notice. The Court will not consider multiple

oppositions, however, and Plaintiff has two options upon receipt of the notice and this order. 

Plaintiff may either (1) stand on his previously-filed opposition filed on November 21, 2011 or (2)

withdraw it and file an amended opposition.1

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s supplemental opposition filed on February 1, 2012, is STRICKEN from

the record as an unauthorized pleading;

2. Plaintiff may, within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, withdraw

his opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss and file an amended opposition;

3. If Plaintiff does not file an amended opposition in response to this order, his existing

opposition, filed on November 21, 2011, will be considered in resolving Defendants’

motion to dismiss;

4. If Plaintiff elects to file an amended opposition, Defendants’ existing reply, filed on 

December 6, 2011, will not be considered and they may file an amended reply

pursuant to Local Rule 230(l); and

5. In light of 28 U.S.C. § 476(a)(1), the Civil Justice Reform Act, Defendants’ motion

to dismiss is HEREBY DEEMED VACATED from the Court’s calendar to allow

time for the filing of an amended opposition and amended reply.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 23, 2012 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Court notes the comprehensive nature of Plaintiff’s existing opposition, but its adequacy is apparently

1

irrelevant. Plaintiff is entitled to an opportunity to file an amended opposition following “fair notice” to him of the

requirements for opposing a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Woods, 684 F.3d at

940.

3

Case 1:07-cv-01299-LJO-GSA Document 77 Filed 08/23/12 Page 3 of 3