Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01705/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01705-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 

JEREMY JAMISON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SAMBRAJYA PALAGUMMI, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:13-cv-01705-AC-P 

ORDER AND AMENDED DISCOVERY 

AND SCHEDULING ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S. § 1983. 

Pending before the court is defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies pursuant to non-enumerated Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). ECF No. 35. Plaintiff 

has opposed the motion. ECF Nos. 40-41. 

On April 3, 2014, the Ninth Circuit overruled Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th 

Cir. 2003), and held that the defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies under 42 

U.S.C. § 1997e(a) should in most cases be presented in a motion for summary judgment rather 

than a motion to dismiss under unenumerated Rule 12(b). Albino v. Baca, No. 10-55702, 2014 

WL 1317141 (9th Cir. Apr. 3, 2014) (en banc). Because defendant has moved for dismissal of 

the complaint as administratively unexhausted pursuant to Rule 12(b), and has not complied with 

the requirements of Rule 56, the court will vacate the motion and direct the defendant to file 

within fourteen (14) days a motion that complies with Albino. 

Case 2:13-cv-01705-AC Document 42 Filed 04/23/14 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

 Also pending before the court is defendant’s motion to modify the discovery and 

scheduling order of February 14, 2014. ECF No. 39. In the motion, defendant requests a six 

month extension of the discovery and dispositive motions deadline governing this case in order 

“to complete discovery and obtain the necessary information to prepare her defense.” Id. at 2. 

Based on defendant’s good faith efforts to meet the deadlines in the discovery schedule entered in 

this case to date and for good cause shown, the court will grant the motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

16(b)(4). 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 

1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 35) is vacated; 

2. Defendant may, within fourteen days, bring a motion for summary judgment pursuant 

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 on the issue of administrative exhaustion. In doing so, defendant must 

provide plaintiff with the notice required under Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 

1998) (en banc); 

 3. The discovery deadline is extended to December 14, 2014. Any motions necessary to 

compel discovery shall be filed by that date. All requests for discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 31, 33, 34 or 36 shall be served not later than sixty days prior to that date (October 15, 2014); 

 4. All pretrial motions, except motions to compel discovery, shall be filed on or before 

April 1, 2015; and, 

 5. All other provisions of this Court’s February 14, 2014 Discovery and Scheduling Order 

remain in effect. 

DATED: April 22, 2014 

Case 2:13-cv-01705-AC Document 42 Filed 04/23/14 Page 2 of 2