Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00113/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00113-2/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

MS. LONNIE WILLIAMS,

CDCR #T-54378,

Civil No. 12cv0113 BTM (RBB)

Plaintiff,

ORDER PROVIDING PLAINTIFF

NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE

PLEADINGS PURSUANT 

TO WYATT v. TERHUNE AND

SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

vs.

DANIEL PARAMO, et al.,

Defendants.

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. On January 30, 2013, Defendants filed a Motion for 1

Judgment on the Pleadings pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 12(c) [ECF No. 24]. 

2

Because Plaintiff uses the title “Ms.” and identifies as female, the Court shall refer to Plaintiff 1

as “she.”

On August 6, 2012, Defendants filed a Motion requesting that this Court revoke Plaintiff’s in 2

forma pauperis (IFP) status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) on grounds that she, while incarcerated, had

filed three previous civil actions or appeals dismissed on grounds that they were frivolous, malicious or

failed to state a claim. See Defs.’ Mot. [ECF No. 11]. The Court denied Defendants’ Motion however,

finding that Plaintiff had alleged claims of “imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time of

filing. See October 31, 2012 Order [ECF No. 13] at 2-3. Defendants were further ordered to file an

Answer. Id. at 3. Defendants complied, and now, have filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 12(c), arguing Plaintiff has failed to exhaust as required by 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e(a), and has failed to state a claim “pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(6).” See P&As in Supp. of

-1- 12cv0113 BTM (RBB)

Case 3:12-cv-00113-BTM-RBB Document 25 Filed 03/04/13 PageID.<pageID> 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

Defendants argue, in part, that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies

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

A “motion to dismiss based on the failure to exhaust administrative remedies is closely

analogous to a motion for summary judgment,” in that the district court “may look beyond the

pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact.” Stratton v. Buck, 697 F.3d 1004, 1007, 1008 (9th

Cir. 2012) (citing Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2003)).

Therefore, if the Court looks beyond the pleadings when deciding a motion to dismiss for

failure to exhaust, it “must assure that [the plaintiff] has fair notice of h[er] opportunity to

develop a record.” Id. at 1008; Wyatt, 315 F.3d 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 filed a motion

which asks the Court to dismiss her case (or part of it) because she failed to exhaust

administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934,

936, 939 (9th Cir. 2012). If Plaintiff wishes to oppose Defendants’ Motion, she should include

in her Opposition whatever arguments, evidentiarymaterial, or documents she mayhave to show

that she did, in fact, exhaust all administrative remedies as were available to her prior to filing

suit. See Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119-21; Marella, 568 F.3d at 1028; Stratton, 697 F.3d at 1008

(noting plaintiff has the “right to file counter-affidavits or other responsive evidentiarymaterial”

which is relevant to show the administrative exhaustion of her claims). 

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

exhaust, and Plaintiff fails to develop the record by providing evidence to the contrary as part

of her Opposition, her unexhausted claims will be dismissed without prejudice and she will not

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

Defs.’ Mot. [ECF No. 24-1] at 13-25. When Rule 12(c) is used to raise the defense of failure to state a

claim, the motion for judgment on the pleadings faces the same test as a motion under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 1980); McGlinchy v. Shell

Chemical Co., 845 F.2d 802, 810 (9th Cir. 1988). 

-2- 12cv0113 BTM (RBB)

Case 3:12-cv-00113-BTM-RBB Document 25 Filed 03/04/13 PageID.<pageID> 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

court concludes that the prisoner has not exhausted nonjudicial remedies, the proper remedy is

dismissal of the claim without prejudice.”).

Conclusion and Order

In light of this Notice, the Court sets the following briefing schedule:

1) Plaintiff, ifshe chooses, mayfile an Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss,

which includes evidentiary material related to the exhaustion of her claims, and serve it upon

Defendants’ counsel of record no later than Friday, March 22, 2013.

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

no later than Friday, March 29, 2013.

3) Defendants’ Motion is set for hearing in Courtroom15B on Friday, April 5, 2013 

at 11:00 a.m. However, at that time, the Court will consider the matter fully briefed as submitted

on the papers and will issue its written ruling on Defendants’ Motion soon thereafter. Unless

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

will be held. See S.D. CAL. CIVLR 7.1.d.1.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 4, 2013

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

-3- 12cv0113 BTM (RBB)

Case 3:12-cv-00113-BTM-RBB Document 25 Filed 03/04/13 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3