Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01375/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01375-4/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY WAYNE JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

C W McELROY, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-1375 CKD P

ORDER

This pro se prisoner civil rights action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure 

to state a cause of action (ECF No. 24) and a motion for summary judgment asserting that 

plaintiff has failed to exhaust administrative remedies (ECF No. 25). Plaintiff was granted an 

extension of time to respond to both motions. (ECF No. 29.) In lieu of responses, plaintiff has 

filed a motion seeking an order allowing him to conduct discovery before responding to the 

motions. (ECF No. 30.)

As to the motion to dismiss, discovery is not required, and indeed will not be considered 

in determining the sufficiency of the complaint. In considering whether a complaint states a 

cognizable cause of action under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must accept as true the allegations of 

Case 2:13-cv-01375-GEB-CKD Document 31 Filed 09/30/14 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

2

the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), 

construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, and resolve all 

doubts in the pleader’s favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421, reh’g denied, 396 U.S. 

869 (1969). The court will “‘presume that general allegations embrace those specific facts that 

are necessary to support the claim.’” National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 510 

U.S. 249, 256 (1994), quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992).

As to the motion for summary judgment, the only issue is whether plaintiff has exhausted 

administrative remedies as to his claims. See Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014). At 

this stage of the litigation, “[i]f discovery is appropriate, the district court may in its discretion 

limit discovery to evidence concerning exhaustion, leaving until later – if it becomes necessary –

discovery directed to the merits of the suit.” Id. at 1170 (citation omitted). Here, plaintiff seeks 

to conduct discovery as to the merits of his case, which is premature. It is not clear whether he 

also wishes to conduct discovery on the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies. 

Accordingly, the court will grant plaintiff an additional thirty days to respond to 

defendants’ motions. As discovery is irrelevant to the motion to dismiss, the court will grant no 

further extensions of time for plaintiff to respond to this motion. As to the motion for summary 

judgment, plaintiff is advised to review the evidence defendants have submitted on the issue of 

exhaustion (ECF No. 25). If he believes there is additional discoverable evidence on this issue, 

he may file a motion explaining what discovery he seeks to conduct, and if warranted, the court 

will extend time to do so. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for court order (ECF No. 30) is granted in part as follows: 

(a) Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall file a response to 

defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 24). No further extensions of time will be granted.

////

////

////

////

Case 2:13-cv-01375-GEB-CKD Document 31 Filed 09/30/14 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

3

(b) Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall file a response to 

defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 25). Alternatively, plaintiff may file a 

motion for limited discovery, setting out the basis for his belief that there is additional relevant 

evidence on the issue of exhaustion.

Dated: September 30, 2014

2 / jone1375.ord2

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:13-cv-01375-GEB-CKD Document 31 Filed 09/30/14 Page 3 of 3