Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-00504/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-00504-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DALE HAMPTON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

Deputy ALCALA, badge # 1808,

Defendant. /

No. C 06-0504 PJH (PR)

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND

SCHEDULING ORDER FOR

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

This is a civil rights case filed pro se by a former inmate of the San Francisco County

Jail. The defendant is a San Francisco County Jail correctional officer; plaintiff has now

been released from custody. Defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment and

plaintiff has filed a number of motions as well. 

Among the grounds for defendant’s motion for summary judgment is a contention

that plaintiff has not exhausted his administrative remedies, given that in the complaint he

checked a box indicating that the last level to which he complained was not the highest

level available. On the other hand, in his response to the reply plaintiff says that he needs

production of requested documents, which, he says, will show that he exhausted. Because

this issue has the potential to be dispositive of the case, and because plaintiff has shown

that he needs additional discovery to adequately oppose the contention, the motion for

summary judgment (document number 24 on the docket) is DENIED. See Fed. R.Civ.P.

56(f) (motion for summary judgment may be denied or continued to allow discovery). 

Further proceedings in this case are limited, for now, to resolving the exhaustion

question. Defendant should note that a nonexhaustion claim should be raised in an

unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion rather than in a motion for summary judgment. Wyatt v.

Case 4:06-cv-00504-PJH Document 53 Filed 07/31/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Petitioner should note the “Warning – Exhaustion” given him with the order of service. .

2

Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). In deciding such a motion – a motion to

dismiss for failure to exhaust nonjudicial remedies – the court may look beyond the

pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact. Id. at 1119-20.1

 If the court concludes that

the prisoner has not exhausted nonjudicial remedies, the proper remedy is dismissal

without prejudice. Id. at 1120. A prisoner must complete the administrative review process

in accordance with the applicable procedural rules, including deadlines, as a precondition to

bringing suit in federal court. Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S. Ct. 2378, 2384 (2006). 

Plaintiff has filed several motions which in one way or another involve discovery. 

Plaintiff’s motion for production of documents was stricken in the court’s order entered on

February 12, 2007. His motion for a ruling on the motion for production (document number

33) is DENIED as moot. It appears from plaintiff’s opposition to the motion for summary

judgment and his response to the reply that he now has copies of the defendant’s filings he

requests in his motion (document number 36). It is DENIED as moot without prejudice to

renewing it if the court is incorrect and he does not have the necessary copies.

Plaintiff also requests a free copy of the complaint he filed in this case. It is his

responsibility to retain copies of the documents he files. A copy can be supplied if plaintiff

pays the copying charge; he should contact the clerk for the proper procedure for

determining the charge. The motion (document number 37) is DENIED.

Plaintiff has also filed a motion to compel discovery. In view of the court’s having

limited proceedings to the exhaustion issue, production of so many documents is, for the

moment, unnecessary. The motion (document number 38) is DENIED. Likewise, plaintiff’s

motion to impose sanctions (document number 47) also is DENIED. Defendant shall

cooperate in discovery limited to the question of exhaustion. Until resolution of the

exhaustion issue, discovery on other aspects of the case is STAYED.

Defendant shall file a motion based on nonexhaustion within thirty days of the date

this order is entered, or shall inform the court within that time that no such motion is

Case 4:06-cv-00504-PJH Document 53 Filed 07/31/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

justified. If a motion is filed, plaintiff may oppose it within thirty days of the date it is served

upon him. Defendant’s reply, if any, is due fourteen days from the date the opposition is

served on him. The court will then consider the motion without oral argument, on the

papers.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 31, 2007. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.06\HAMPTON504.SJ-DENY.wpd

Case 4:06-cv-00504-PJH Document 53 Filed 07/31/07 Page 3 of 3