Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01735/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01735-5/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 - 07cv1735-L (POR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOE L. MCKENNEY, JR., Civil No. 07cv1735-L (POR)

Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

DENYING DEFENDANT

HERNANDEZ’S MOTION TO DISMISS

PLAINTIFF’S EIGHTH AMENDMENT

CLAIM 

[ECF No. 72]

v.

R. HERNANDEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

I. INTRODUCTION

On September 26, 2008, Plaintiff Joe L. McKenney, Jr., a state prisoner proceeding pro se,

filed a First Amended Civil Rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against five employees

of Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility: Robert J. Hernandez, Warden; M.F. Stout, Visiting

Lieutenant; L.V. Tillman, Visiting Sergeant; G.S. Gasgonia, Visiting Correctional Officer; and

Richard G. Ramirez, Visiting Correctional Officer (“Defendants”). (ECF No. 18.) 

On November 15, 2010, Defendant R. Hernandez filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s

Eighth Amendment Claim for deprivation of outdoor exercise while in administrative segregation. 

(ECF No. 72.) Defendant Hernandez contends Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies

as to this claim. Id. at 1. 

After a thorough review of the parties’ pleadings and all supporting documents, this Court

RECOMMENDS Defendant Hernandez’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim

be DENIED.

Case 3:07-cv-01735-CAB-DHB Document 95 Filed 04/08/11 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 - 07cv1735-L (POR)

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Prior to the Motion to Dismiss at issue in this Order, Defendants Hernandez, Ramirez, Stout,

and Tillman filed a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint as to

Defendant Hernandez. (ECF No. 19.) On April 1, 2009, this Court issued a Report and

Recommendation granting in part and denying in part Defendant Hernandez’s Motion to Dismiss,

which the District Judge adopted on July 7, 2009. (ECF Nos. 22, 24.) On January 22, 2010,

Defendant Hernandez filed an Answer. (ECF No. 31.) On November 15, 2010, Defendant R.

Hernandez filed an unenumerated 12(b) Motion to Dismiss, this time alleging Plaintiff failed to

exhaust his Eighth Amendment Claim for deprivation of outdoor exercise while in administrative

segregation. (ECF No. 72.)

III. DISCUSSION

A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12

A non-enumerated motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) is “the proper pretrial

motion for establishing nonexhaustion” of administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. section

1997e(a). See Ritza v. Int’l Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union, 837 F.2d 365, 368-69 (9th

Cir. 1988). However, FRCP 12(g) states, “Except as provided in Rule 12(h)(2) or (3), a party that

makes a motion under this rule must not make another motion under this rule raising a defense or

objection that was available to the party but omitted in its earlier motion.” FRCP 12(h)(2) states, “a

legal defense to a claim may be raised: (A) in any pleading allowed or ordered under Rule 7(a); (B)

by a motion under Rule 12(c); or (C) at trial.” FRCP 12(h)(3) states, “If the Court determines at any

time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”

B. Analysis

On November 15, 2010, Defendant R. Hernandez filed an unenumerated 12(b) Motion to

Dismiss alleging Plaintiff failed to exhaust his Eighth Amendment Claim for deprivation of outdoor

exercise. (ECF No. 72.) In support of this contention, Defendant Hernandez asserts none of the 602

appeals Plaintiff filed between February 8, 2006 and March 15, 2007 “even remotely discuss or

allude to an alleged denial of outdoor exercise.” (ECF No. 72-1 at 4-6.) Consequently, the

information that Plaintiff had allegedly failed to exhaust his administrative remedies was available to

Case 3:07-cv-01735-CAB-DHB Document 95 Filed 04/08/11 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 - 07cv1735-L (POR)

Defendant on October 9, 2008 (one and a half years after Plaintiff’s last 602 appeal) when he filed

his first Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. However, rather than raise a

failure to exhaust claim in the initial Motion to Dismiss, Defendant Hernandez asserted Plaintiff

failed to state a claim with regard to the deprivation of outdoor exercise. (ECF No. 19.) Therefore,

Defendant Hernandez is procedurally barred from raising the failure to exhaust claim in this

subsequent Motion to Dismiss because “a party that makes a motion under [FRCP 12] must not

make another motion under this rule raising a defense or objection that was available to the party but

omitted in its earlier motion.” F.R.C.P. 12(g). 

Accordingly, the Court hereby RECOMMENDS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s

Eighth Amendment Claim for deprivation of outdoor exercise be DENIED.

IV. CONCLUSION

After thorough review of the record in this case and based on the foregoing, the Court hereby

RECOMMENDS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment Claim for

deprivation of outdoor exercise be DENIED. 

This Report and Recommendation of the undersigned Magistrate Judge is submitted to the

United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)

(1994). 

Any party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties on or

before May 9, 2011. The document should be captioned “Objections to Report and

Recommendation.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed on or before May 23, 2011.

 The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right

to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 8, 2011

LOUISA S PORTER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01735-CAB-DHB Document 95 Filed 04/08/11 Page 3 of 3