Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00658/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00658-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GILBERT AMBALONG,

Plaintiff,

v.

R.H. TRIMBLE, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:12-cv-00658-AWI-DLB (PC)

ORDER DENYING UNENUMERATED 

RULE 12(B) MOTION AND REQUIRING 

DEFENDANTS TO FILE RESPONSIVE 

PLEADING OR MOTION WITHIN THIRTY 

DAYS

(Doc. 20) 

Plaintiff Gilbert Ambalong (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 25, 2012. This action 

is proceeding on Plaintiff’s amended complaint against Defendants D.B. Allen, F. Igbinosa, R.H. 

Trimble, and B. Green (“Defendants”) for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s health and safety, 

in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

On July 2, 2013, 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 did not file a response to the motion. 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 issue of administrative exhaustion. 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 the issue of exhaustion in either (1) a motion to dismiss pursuant to 

Case 1:12-cv-00658-AWI-DLB Document 22 Filed 04/17/14 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

Rule 12(b)(6), in the rare event that the failure to exhaust is clear on the face of the complaint, or 

(2) a motion for summary judgment. Albino, 2014 WL 1317141, at *4 (quotation marks omitted). 

An unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion is no longer the proper procedural device for raising the issue 

of exhaustion. Id. 

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

1. Defendants’ unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion is DENIED; and

2. Defendants have thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order within 

which to file a responsive pleading or motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 16, 2014 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00658-AWI-DLB Document 22 Filed 04/17/14 Page 2 of 2