Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00757/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00757-11/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

LOUIS V. RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

CDCR DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW 

BOARD, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00757-AWI-JLT (PC)

ORDER STRIKING UNENUMERATED 

RULE 12(B) MOTION AND REQUIRING 

DEFENDANTS TO FILE RESPONSIVE 

PLEADING 

(Doc. 42) 

30 DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff, Louis V. Rodriguez, ("Plaintiff") a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 9, 2012. This action is 

proceeding on Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint against Defendants Cox, Terrell, and Cavazos

("Defendants") on an Eighth Amendment claim for the excessive use of force against Terrell and 

Cavazos and on a First Amendment claim of retaliation against Cox, Terrell, and Cavazos.

On February 25, 2014, Defendants filed an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss on 

the ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust the available administrative remedies. 42 U.S.C. § 

1997e(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). Plaintiff requested and received an extension of time to file his 

opposition which is not yet due. Local Rule 230(l).

On April 3, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a 

decision overruling Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003) with respect to the 

proper procedural device for raising the affirmative defense of exhaustion under § 1997e(a). 

Case 1:12-cv-00757-DAD-JLT Document 46 Filed 04/09/14 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

Albino v. Baca, No. 10-55702, 2014 WL 1317141, at *1 (9th Cir. Apr. 3, 2014) (en banc). 

Following the decision in Albino, Defendants may raise exhaustion deficiencies as an affirmative 

defense under §1997e(a) in either (1) a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)1or (2) a 

motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 if it has been pled and preserved. Albino, 2014 WL 

1317141, at *4. An unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion is no longer the proper procedural device 

for raising the affirmative defense of exhaustion. Id. 

Accordingly, in light of the decision in Albino, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion is stricken from the record;

2

and

2. Defendants have 30 days from the date of service of this order within which to file 

a responsive pleading.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 9, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1 Motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) are only appropriate "[i]n the rare event a failure to exhaust is clear on the 

face of the complaint." Albino, 2014 WL 1317141, at *1.

2 District courts have broad discretion to control their own dockets, M. M. v. Lafayette School Dist., 681 F.3d 1082, 

1091 (9th Cir. 2012), and the Court elects to strike Defendants’ unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss in light of 

the decision in Albino. A stricken document is a nullity which is not considered by the Court for any reason (First 

Informational Order, ¶1 n. 1) and given that Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se, striking the motion and requiring 

Defendants to re-notice it under Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 56, accompanied by the requisite notice, serves to clarify the 

record and place Plaintiff on “fair notice” regarding what is required of him in responding to the motion, Woods v. 

Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 938-40 (9th Cir. 2012).

Case 1:12-cv-00757-DAD-JLT Document 46 Filed 04/09/14 Page 2 of 2