Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01502/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01502-5/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

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

Plaintiff John Catanzarite is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Now pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to covert their Rule 12(b) motion into a 

motion for summary judgment, filed April 25, 2014. (ECF No. 35.) 

On March 24, 2014, Defendants filed an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss on the 

grounds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust the available administrative remedies and violated the statute of 

limitation as to any claims based on events occurring before September 13, 2008. 42 U.S.C. § 

1997e(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). Plaintiff has not filed 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 Rule 

12(b)(6), in the rare event 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 

JOHN CATANZARITE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

D. PIERCE, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01502-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

CONVERT 12(B) MOTION INTO A MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[ECF No. 35]

Case 1:12-cv-01502-DAD-SAB Document 38 Filed 05/05/14 Page 1 of 2
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

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

exhaustion. Id. 

A motion for summary judgement differs in several critical respects to a unenumerated Rule 

12(b) motion to dismiss. Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the filing of a 

motion for summary judgment. A motion for summary judgment must be supported by adequate 

factual documentation, must conform in all respects with Rule 56, must include a statement of 

disputed and undisputed facts, and must include as exhibits all documentation relating to the events at 

issue. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), (c); Local Rule 260. A motion for summary judgment also must be 

accompanied by a Rand1notice so that Plaintiff will have fair, timely and adequate notice of what is 

required of him in order to oppose the motion. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 935 (9th Cir. 2012) 

(notice requirement set forth in Rand must be served concurrently with motion for summary judgment. 

Because of the stringent requirements set forth in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 

the fact that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court finds the prudent approach to resolving the issue 

of exhaustion of the administrative remedies to be resolved by the filing of a motion for summary 

judgement in compliance with the applicable law. This is especially true since this is a non-consent 

case and the district judge does not have the time nor resources based upon their impacted docket to 

address issues in the form of any objections to findings and recommendations which could be 

addressed if this Court were the Court of only instance. Accordingly, the Court shall deny 

Defendants’ motion to convert the Rule 12(b) motion into a motion for summary judgment. 

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to convert the Rule 12(b) motion into a 

motion for summary judgment is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 5, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1

Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Case 1:12-cv-01502-DAD-SAB Document 38 Filed 05/05/14 Page 2 of 2