Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00917/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00917-5/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

TIMOTHY WATTS,

Plaintiff,

v.

NGUYEN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-00917-AWI-SKO (PC)

ORDER ON REMAND

(Doc. 49)

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff, Timothy Watts, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. This action was dismissed and judgment 

was entered in Defendants’ favor on September 9, 2015, when Defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust available administrative remedies prior to filing 

suit was granted. (Docs. 44, 45.) Plaintiff filed a timely appeal to the Ninth Circuit. (Doc. 46.) 

In light of the subsequent intervening authority in Reyes v. Smith, 810 F.3d 654 (9th Cir. 

2016), the Ninth Circuit remanded this action for a determination whether Plaintiff properly 

exhausted administrative remedies on his deliberate indifference claim regarding medical 

appliances. (Doc. 49, pp. 2-3.) Reyes issued after this action was closed and was neither 

addressed by the parties in the dispositive motion, nor considered in the ruling thereon.

//

//

//

Case 1:13-cv-00917-AWI-SKO Document 50 Filed 12/02/16 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

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order, Defendants shall file 

either:

(a) a motion for summary judgment on exhaustion, restricted to Plaintiff’s 

deliberate indifference claim regarding medical appliances, or 

(b) a statement that, in light of Reyes, they do not intend to file a motion on 

exhaustion issues.

1

2. If Defendants file a motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff shall file an 

opposition2 within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of Defendants’

motion, and Defendants shall file a reply within seven (7) days of the date 

Plaintiff’s opposition is filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 2, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1

If Defendants do not intend to file a motion on exhaustion issues, a new discovery and scheduling order will issue.

2

Plaintiff is provided with notice of the requirements for opposing a summary judgment motion for failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies by concurrently issued order. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939-41 (9th Cir. 2012); Rand 

v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 960-61 (9th Cir. 1998); Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Case 1:13-cv-00917-AWI-SKO Document 50 Filed 12/02/16 Page 2 of 2