Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-02765/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-02765-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND SETTING BRIEFING

SCHEDULE—C-03-02765 RMW

SPT

E-FILED on 8/29/06 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

KENNETH HOLCOMB,

Plaintiff,

v.

DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS, CAL

TERHUNE, et al.

Defendants.

No. C-03-02765 RMW

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE

TO FILE A MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION AND SETTING

BRIEFING SCHEDULE

[Re Docket No. 36]

On March 31, 2005 the court issued an order denying defendant's motion to dismiss based on

the holding in Ngo v. Woodford, 403 F.3d 620 (9th Cir. 2005). Defendant's motion to dismiss rested

on the contention that plaintiff's action is barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies

required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). In its motion to dismiss, defendant argued that plaintiff's

administrative appeal is incapable of exhaustion because it was rejected as untimely. In Ngo, the

Ninth Circuit held that the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995's ("PLRA") exhaustion requirement

does not bar subsequent judicial consideration of an exhausted administrative appeal that was denied

on state procedural grounds (timeliness). Accordingly, the court denied defendant's motion to

dismiss.

Case 5:03-cv-02765-RMW Document 38 Filed 08/29/06 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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND SETTING BRIEFING

SCHEDULE—C-03-02765 RMW

SPT 2

On June 22, 2006 the United States Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's holding in

Ngo. Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S. Ct. 2378 (2006). Defendant now seeks leave to file a motion for

reconsideration of the court's March 31, 2005 Order pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(2). In light

of the Supreme Court's June 22, 2006 ruling, the court finds reconsideration proper. The court

grants the motion and sets the following briefing schedule:

Plaintiff's opposition shall be filed by: Friday, September 29, 2006

Defendant's reply shall be filed by: Friday, October 6, 2006

A hearing, if any, shall take place: Friday, October 20, 2006 at 9:00 a.m.

DATED: 8/28/06

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:03-cv-02765-RMW Document 38 Filed 08/29/06 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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND SETTING BRIEFING

SCHEDULE—C-03-02765 RMW

SPT 3

Notice of this document has been mailed or electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

William L. Schmidt bschmidt@ncinternet.net

Counsel for State Defendants:

Tom Blake tom.blake@doj.ca.gov 

Counsel for Defendant Clark:

Van Longyear longyear@lolllp.com

James M. Davis mdavis@lolllp.com 

Counsel for Defendant Grillo:

Maureen H. Loftis mloftis@glattys.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 8/29/06 SPT 

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:03-cv-02765-RMW Document 38 Filed 08/29/06 Page 3 of 3