Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02844/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02844-5/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

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BENJY WADE,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. RUBALCABA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2: 18-cv-2844 KJM KJN P

ORDER

On December 6, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Defendants move to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiff failed to 

exhaust administrative remedies and on the merits.1 Plaintiff has not opposed the motion. 

Local Rule 230(l) provides in part: “Failure of the responding party to file written 

opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to 

 

1

 On April 3, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overruled 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, 747 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 

2014) (en banc). Following the decision in Albino, a defendant 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 amended complaint, or (2) a motion for summary judgment. Albino, 

747 F.3d at 1166, 1169-70 (quotation marks omitted). An unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion is no 

longer the proper procedural device for raising the issue of exhaustion. Albino, 747 F.3d at 1168. 

Case 2:18-cv-02844-KJM-KJN Document 41 Filed 01/03/20 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

the granting of the motion . . . .” Id. 

Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules “may be grounds for 

imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of 

the Court.” Id. 

Finally, Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

Involuntary Dismissal; Effect. If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or 

to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to 

dismiss the action or any claim against it. Unless the dismissal order 

states otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision (b) and any 

dismissal not under this rule--except one for lack of jurisdiction, 

improper venue, or failure to join a party under Rule 19--operates as 

an adjudication on the merits.

Id.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within thirty days from the date 

of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition, if any, to the motion to dismiss. Failure to file an 

opposition will be deemed as consent to have the: (a) action dismissed for lack of prosecution; 

and (b) action dismissed based on plaintiff’s failure to comply with these rules and a court order. 

Such failure shall result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Dated: January 3, 2020

Wade2844.nop

Case 2:18-cv-02844-KJM-KJN Document 41 Filed 01/03/20 Page 2 of 2