Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00782/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00782-3/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Kareem Howell is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Currently before the Court is Defendants’ request to limit discovery to the issue of 

administrative exhaustion, filed February 4, 2020. 

I.

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

This action is proceeding on Defendants Cruz, Borona, Raishke, and Randolph for retaliation, 

and against Defendant Raishke for excessive force.

On February 4, 2020, Defendants filed an answer to the complaint, and a separate request to 

limit discovery to the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies. (ECF Nos. 21, 22.) 

KAREEM J. HOWELL,

 Plaintiff,

v.

K. CRUZ, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:19-cv-00782-DAD-SAB (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

TO LIMIT DISCOVERY TO ISSUE OF 

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE 

REMEDIES AND STAYING MERITS BASED 

DISCOVERY 

[ECF No. 22]

Case 1:19-cv-00782-DAD-SAB Document 26 Filed 03/04/20 Page 1 of 3
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

On February 7, 2020, the Court construed Defendants’ request as a motion to limit discovery to 

issue of administrative exhaustion and directed Plaintiff to file a response within fourteen days. (ECF 

No. 23.) Plaintiff filed a response on February 24, 2020. (ECF No. 24.) 

II.

DISCUSSION

In their motion, Defendants argue that the issue of administrative exhaustion may be 

dispositive based on the factual allegations set forth in Plaintiff’s complaint. Defendants submit that 

“[p]reliminarily narrowing discovery to that issue would likely secure the just, speedy, and 

inexpensive determination of this action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.” (Mot. at 1, ECF No. 22.) Defendants 

bring the request pursuant to this Court’s inherent authority to set the timing of discovery under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d), and the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 

1162, 1170 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc), that the issue of administrative exhaustion should be decided 

early in the proceedings. (Mot. at 2.) 

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that he is excused from exhausting the administrative remedies 

and that Defendants must raise and prove the issue by way of filing a motion for summary judgment.

In this instance, the Court agrees with Defendants that judicial economy is best served by 

staying merits-based discovery and limiting any discovery to the issue of administrative exhaustion. 

Therefore, the Court will stay all merits-based discovery until expiration of the exhaustion motion 

deadline if no motion is filed or until the exhaustion motion is finally resolved. 

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:19-cv-00782-DAD-SAB Document 26 Filed 03/04/20 Page 2 of 3
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

III.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to limit discovery to the issue of administrative exhaustion is 

GRANTED; and 

2. All merits-based discovery is STAYTED until the expiration of the deadline to file an 

exhaustion motion expires (if not motion is filed) or until the exhaustion motion is 

resolved. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00782-DAD-SAB Document 26 Filed 03/04/20 Page 3 of 3