Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02261/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02261-0/pdf.json

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KYLE AVERY,

CDCR #E-67897,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 13cv2261 BTM (DHB)

ORDER PROVIDING PLAINTIFF

NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT RE FAILURE TO

EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE

REMEDIES

vs.

D. PARAMO, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Kyle Avery is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action filed pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Defendants have filed a pre-answer motion for summary judgment pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014)

(en banc) (Doc. No. 32). In their Motion, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to

exhaust all available administrative remedies as to his retaliation claims prior to filing

thislawsuit, asrequired by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). See 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e(a); Defs.’ Mot. at 6. 

/ / /

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\13cv2261-MSJ Notice re exhaust.wpd - 1 - 13cv2261 BTM (DHB)

Case 3:13-cv-02261-BTM-DHB Document 33 Filed 09/09/14 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

“The PLRA mandates that inmates exhaust all available administrative remedies

before filing “any suit challenging prison conditions,” including, but not limited to,

suits under § 1983.” Albino, 747 F.3d at 1171, citing Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81,

85 (2006). “Exhaustion should be decided, if feasible, before reaching the merits of

a prisoner’s claim.” Id. at 1170. The Ninth Circuit has held that “the appropriate

procedural device for pretrial determination of whether administrative remedies have

been exhausted under the PLRA . . . is a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56.” 

Id. at 1168. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff is herebyprovided with notice that Defendants have asked

the Court to find, as a matter of law, that he failed to exhaust administrative remedies

as to his claims of retaliation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Plaintiff is further

advised of his opportunity to include in his Opposition to Defendants’ Motion

whatever arguments and documentary evidence he may have to show that he did, in

fact, exhaust all administrative remedies related to his claims of retaliation as were

available to him prior to filing suit. See Marella v. Terhune, 568 F.3d 1024, 1028 (9th

Cir. 2009) (a district court must “effectively give [plaintiff] fair notice that he should

have submitted evidence regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies”). TheCourt

cautions Plaintiff that if he does not submit his own evidence in opposition, summary

judgment as to his retaliation claims, if appropriate, may be entered against him. If

summary judgment as to his retaliation claims is granted, those claims will be

dismissed and there will be no trial on the merits as to those claims.

Defendants’ Motion is set for hearing on Friday, October 24, 2014, at 11 a.m.

in Courtroom 15B. Accordingly, Plaintiff must file an opposition to Defendants’

Motion and serve it upon Defendants’ counsel of record no later than Friday, October

10, 2014. Defendants may file a reply no later than Friday, October 17, 2014. At the

time set for hearing, the Court will consider the matter fully briefed assubmitted on the

papers and will issue a written Order in due course.

/ / / 

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\13cv2261-MSJ Notice re exhaust.wpd - 2 - 13cv2261 BTM (DHB)

Case 3:13-cv-02261-BTM-DHB Document 33 Filed 09/09/14 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

Unless otherwise ordered, no appearances are required on October 24, 2014, and

no oral argument will be held on that date. See S.D. CAL. CIVLR 7.1.d.1.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ___________ _________________________________________

 HON. BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge

 United States District Court

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\13cv2261-MSJ Notice re exhaust.wpd - 3 - 13cv2261 BTM (DHB)

9/9/2014

Case 3:13-cv-02261-BTM-DHB Document 33 Filed 09/09/14 Page 3 of 3