Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01499/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01499-10/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NEHEMIAH ROBINSON, No. CIV S-05-1499-LKK-CMK

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

M. PENNER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 35)

of the portion of the court’s October 5, 2006, order directing the Clerk of the Court to terminate

King as a defendant to this action because such defendant was not named in the superceding first

amended complaint. As plaintiff notes, defendant King is indeed named as a defendant in the

first amended complaint. Therefore, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a), the court

hereby corrects this error in the October 5, 2006, order. The Clerk of the Court will be directed

to add King as a defendant. 

The first amended complaint appears to state a cognizable claim for relief

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) against defendant King, as well as the

Case 2:05-cv-01499-LKK -CMK Document 37 Filed 11/02/06 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

The court notes that, according to plaintiff’s complaint, plaintiff has not exhausted 1

his administrative remedies. However, because exhaustion is not a jurisdictional requirement for

bringing suit, see Rumbles v. Hill, 182 F.3d 1064, 1070 (9th Cir. 1999), and because failure to

exhaust is an affirmative defense which can only be raised by defendants, see Wyatt v. Terhune,

280 F.3d 1238, 1245-46 (9th Cir. 2002), dismissal at this time for failure to exhaust is not

appropriate. 

2

other defendants listed in the October 5, 2006, order. The court, therefore, finds that service is 1

appropriate for defendant King and will direct service by the U.S. Marshal without pre-payment

of costs. Plaintiff is informed, however, that this action cannot proceed further until plaintiff

complies with this order. Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with this order may result in

dismissal of the action. See Local Rule 11-110. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (doc. 35) is granted;

2. The October 5, 2006, order is corrected to reflect that King remains a

defendant to this action;

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to add defendant King to the docket;

4. Service is appropriate for the following individual defendant(s): 

KING;

5. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff one USM-285 form; and

6. Within 30 days of the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall complete

the attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit one completed USM-285 form for

defendant King.

DATED: November 1, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01499-LKK -CMK Document 37 Filed 11/02/06 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

3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NEHEMIAH ROBINSON, No. CIV S-05-1499-LKK-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs.

M. PENNER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's

order:

 completed USM-285 form; and

DATED: __________________ ____________________________________

Plaintiff

Case 2:05-cv-01499-LKK -CMK Document 37 Filed 11/02/06 Page 3 of 3