Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00399/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00399-3/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

JESSIE L. SERRANO,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCOTT RAWERS, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-0399-MJS (PC)

ORDER (1) DENYING UNENUMERATED 

RULE 12(b) MOTION WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE, (2) DENYING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR AN 

EXTENSION OF TIME AS MOOT, AND (3) 

REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO FILE 

RESPONSIVE PLEADING OR MOTION 

WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

(ECF Nos. 21, 26) 

Plaintiff Jessie L. Serrano, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter proceeds on an Eighth 

Amendment failure to protect claim against Defendant Lucas.

On November 25, 2013, Defendant Lucas filed a motion to dismiss the action under 

the unenumerated provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) for failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies. (ECF No. 21); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). 

Defendant also filed a motion for an extension of time to reply to Plaintiff’s opposition to the 

motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 26.)

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. 

Case 1:11-cv-00399-EPG Document 28 Filed 05/12/14 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

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. An unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion is no longer the proper procedural device for 

raising the issue of exhaustion. Id. 

For the reasons stated, the unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion is procedurally 

deficient in light of the decision in Albino. The unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion shall be 

denied, without prejudice, on procedural grounds. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for an 

extension of time should also be denied as moot.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion filed November 25, 2013 (ECF No. 21) 

is DENIED, without prejudice, on procedural grounds, 

2. Defendant’s motion for an extension of time filed March 21, 2014 (ECF No. 

26) is DENIED as moot; and

3. Defendant shall, within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order 

file a responsive pleading or motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 12, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00399-EPG Document 28 Filed 05/12/14 Page 2 of 2