Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00575/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00575-12/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUSTAVO TORRES,

 Plaintiff,

v.

J. GUTIERREZ, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00575-DAD-MJS (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S 

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE 

OF INTENTION NOT TO FILE 

EXHAUSTION MOTION

(ECF No. 58)

CLERK TO STRIKE ECF NO. 57

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE TO FILE 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds on Plaintiff’s 

Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claims against Defendants Arellano and 

Montanez and First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Montanez. 

On June 24, 2016, Defendants filed a notice of intention not to file a motion for 

summary judgment for failure to exhaust. (ECF No. 52.) Defendants reserved the right 

to raise the issue of exhaustion at trial. (Id.)

On July 25, 2016, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendants’ notice. (ECF No. 57.) 

Case 1:15-cv-00575-DAD-MJS Document 68 Filed 02/01/17 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

Therein, Plaintiff argues that he did, in fact, exhaust his administrative remedies; he also 

presents evidence in support. He asks the Court to “grant” summary judgment in 

Plaintiff’s favor on the issue of exhaustion. He also appears to ask the Court to grant 

judgment in his favor on the merits on his claims.

On August 15, 2016, Defendants filed the instant motion to strike Plaintiff’s 

response, construed as a motion for summary judgment on exhaustion grounds, as 

untimely and procedurally defective or, in the alternative, grant Defendants an extension 

of time until thirty days after the Court issues its ruling, to oppose Plaintiff’s motion. 

(ECF No. 58.)

To the extent Plaintiff opposes a present or future claim that he failed to exhaust 

his administrative remedies, that opposition is premature. Defendants have not claimed 

that Plaintiff failed to exhaust. The Court will not, at this stage, issue any rulings related 

to exhaustion. The Court therefore disregards Plaintiff’s arguments on this issue.

To the extent Plaintiff seeks judgment in his favor on the merits of his claims, 

Defendants are correct that Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally defective. A party moving 

for summary judgment must enumerate each fact relied upon in support of his motion 

and cite to particular portions of the record, including pleadings, depositions, or 

affidavits, that support each claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Local Rule 260(a). At present, 

Plaintiff’s motion is vague and nonspecific and the Court cannot determine the basis for 

his arguments. 

Pursuant to the Discovery and Scheduling Order, the dispositive motions

deadline was August 10, 2016. (ECF No. 27.) In the interest of fairness, the Court will 

grant Plaintiff thirty (30) days from the date of this order to renew his motion for 

summary judgment on the merits. If Plaintiff chooses to so file, he must comply with 

both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Eastern District Local Rules. He may 

not renew his arguments regarding exhaustion. No extensions will be granted absent a 

showing of good cause.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

Case 1:15-cv-00575-DAD-MJS Document 68 Filed 02/01/17 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

1. Defendants’ motion to strike (ECF No. 58) is GRANTED;

2. The Clerk of Court shall strike ECF No. 57 from the record; and

3. Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days from the date of this order to file a motion 

for summary judgment on the merits. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 1, 2017 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00575-DAD-MJS Document 68 Filed 02/01/17 Page 3 of 3