Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00317/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00317-1/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 07cv317 WQH (NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRELL MARTIN HONORE,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN, as an individual and his/her

official capacity; DELGADO, Program

Sergeant, as an individual and his/her official

capacity; BENTLEY, Yard Sergeant, as an

individual and his/her official capacity; and

JACOBS, Correctional Officer, as an

individual and his/her official capacity,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 07cv317 WQH (NLS)

ORDER REQUIRING

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

Darrell Martin Honore, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a civil

rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials at Calipatria State Prison. Defendants

Scribner, Bentley, Delgado and Jacobs filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint on these grounds:

(1) the Eleventh Amendment bars suits against individuals in their official capacities; (2) the respondeat

superior claim against Warden Scribner should be dismissed for failure to state a claim; and (3) Plaintiff

failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The

motion came on for hearing on September 21, 2007. Plaintiff never filed an opposition to the motion. 

 Regarding exhaustion, Defendants seek to dismiss the complaint through a nonenumerated Rule

12(b) motion, which the Ninth Circuit has deemed the appropriate means for resolving any questions

relating to exhaustion. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal citation

Case 3:07-cv-00317-JLS-NLS Document 19 Filed 09/25/07 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 07cv317 WQH (NLS)

omitted). In deciding such a motion, the Court may “look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed

issues of fact.” Id. at 1119-20. While the Court may dismiss any unexhausted claim without prejudice,

it apparently may not do so without providing Plaintiff “fair notice of his opportunity to develop a

record.” Id. at 1120, n.14.

Defendants submitted documentary evidence, including declarations by D. Edwards, Appeals

Coordinator at Calipatria State Prison, and N. Grannis, Chief of the California Department of

Corrections Inmate Appeals Branch in Sacramento, California, which they contend demonstrate that

Plaintiff was untimely in filing a 602 form in the appeal time frame. Plaintiff has not submitted any

evidence to rebut Defendants’ declarations. In light of Wyatt, this Court finds it appropriate to afford

Plaintiff another opportunity to develop the record on whether he exhausted his claims and thus finds

additional briefing necessary.

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS:

1. On or before October 26, 2007, Plaintiff shall file and serve any opposition to

Defendants’ motion. In his opposition, Plaintiff should submit any evidence that would

contradict Defendants’ contention that he failed to file to timely file the appropriate

inmate appeal form to properly exhaust the claim he raises in his complaint.

2. On or before November 6, 2007, Defendants’ shall file and serve any reply to Plaintiff’s

opposition.

3. If Plaintiff fails to respond, the Court will consider Defendants’ motion unopposed and

may grant the motion on that basis. See Civil Local R 7.1(f)(3)(c). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 25, 2007

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00317-JLS-NLS Document 19 Filed 09/25/07 Page 2 of 2