Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05077/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05077-21/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOUIS FRANCIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

H.L. BRYANT, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 5077 REC SMS P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE (Doc. 106-1) 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF THIRTY (30)

DAYS TO FILE RETURN TO ORDER TO

SHOW CAUSE (Doc. 106-2) 

Louis Frances (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on the

original complaint filed on January 14, 2004, alleging an Eighth Amendment violation against

Defendants Galaza and Honest for allowing water to accumulate in his cell and the resulting fall

causing him injury. 

On October 27, 2006, Defendants filed a Motion for Judgment on the pleadings asserting

that the instant action is barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the

Motion on November 13, 2006. In the Opposition, Plaintiff indicated that he filed the instant

action before a de novo review of a prior civil rights action raising the same claims against the

same defendants. That action also alleged a retaliation claim. Plaintiff stated that the Court

recommended dismissal in that case on the basis that Plaintiff had failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies. Before the District Court adopted the Findings and Recommendations

thereby resolving that case, Plaintiff initiated this action because he wanted to ensure that his

claim was not barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff concedes in this pleading that the

claims in this action and the claims raised in that action, which are pending on appeal, are

Case 1:04-cv-05077-LJO -SMS Document 108 Filed 02/20/07 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

2

identical. (Opposition at 2:13-14.) 

Defendants then filed a Reply to the Opposition on November 16, 2006. In the Reply 

Defendants also recounted the proceedings in Plaintiff’s first case, Case No. CV F 99-5905 AWI

LJO, and provide updated information regarding the appeal. Defendants state that on December

12, 2002, the Ninth Circuit issued an unpublished decision affirming judgment on the Eighth

Amendment claim (that the dismissal for lack of exhaustion was proper) and remanding the case

on the retaliation claim. (Reply to Opposition at 4.) At the District Court level, the defendants

again moved to dismiss the retaliation claim for lack of exhaustion and the Motion was granted. 

Plaintiff appealed and the case is again awaiting review in the Ninth Circuit. Id. Defendants

argue that this case is evidence that Plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies with

respect to the Eighth Amendment raised in this action before he filed suit on January 14, 2004. 

Thus, Defendants argue, the case should be dismissed again for lack of exhaustion. Defendants

state in a footnote that at the time the 12(b)(6) motion deadline expired in the instant action, the

controlling authority held that a grievance rejected for untimeliness meant that the inmate had

exhausted his administrative remedies. Subsequent to the expiration of the deadline, however,

the law changed. Because the unenumerated 12(b)(6) motion deadline has expired, Defendants

state that they will seek leave to file a 12(b)(6) motion should the Court recommend that the

Motion for dismissal on statute of limitations grounds be denied. 

On December 15, 2006, and based on the information provided by Plaintiff in his

Opposition and by Defendants in their Reply, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause why the

action should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies prior

to initiating this action. Rather than filing a Return to the Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff

submitted a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order to Show Cause citing the Supreme Court’s

recent decision in Jones v. Bock, 127 S.Ct. 920 (2007.) Plaintiff alleges that the Court has

exceeded its authority by ordering him to show cause on the issue of exhaustion because it is an

affirmative defense that must be raised and proved by the Defendants. 

Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick

Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C.Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th

Case 1:04-cv-05077-LJO -SMS Document 108 Filed 02/20/07 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

3

Cir. 1983) (en banc). The Local Rules provide that when filing a motion for reconsideration, a

party show that the “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist

or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Local

Rule 78-230(k)(3). 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider the Order denying the Motion to Dismiss is not based on

any new facts or law not in existence at the time the Order to Show Cause issued. Although

Jones v. Bock, 127 S.Ct. 920 (2007), issued in January of this year, the law that a Motion to

Dismiss for exhaustion is an affirmative defense has been established since the issuance of Wyatt

v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). 

In addition, this Court has the authority to dismiss a case when a Plaintiff concedes

exhaustion. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 (9th Cir. 2003) (“A

prisoner’s concession to nonexhaustion is a valid grounds for dismissal . . . .”). Although

Plaintiff states that he expressly “pleaded” that he exhausted his administrative remedies in his

Complaint, Plaintiff also states plainly in his Opposition that when he initiated this action, his

prior action, dismissed for failure to exhaust, was not yet resolved by the District Court -

meaning, the Eighth Amendment claim was not exhausted before he initiated this action. It is for

this reason that the Court issued the Order to Show Cause. Because Plaintiff cites no new facts

or circumstances warranting reconsideration of the Order to Show Cause, the Court will deny the

Motion. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motion for Reconsideration of the Order to Show Cause is DENIED; and 

2. The request for an extension of time to file a Return to the Order to Show Cause is

GRANTED. The Return to the Order to Show Cause is due within THIRTY (30)

days of the date of service of this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 16, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05077-LJO -SMS Document 108 Filed 02/20/07 Page 3 of 3