Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00184/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00184-9/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

SHAKLA JOSEPH,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. S. WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-00184-LJO-SMS PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR EXTENSION OF UNENUMERATED

12(B) MOTION DEADLINE

(Doc. 37)

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE A

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

(Doc. 35)

Plaintiff Shakla Joseph (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1 (Religious Land Use and

Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”)). On August 24, 2007, defendants filed a motion

to dismiss for failure to exhaust, pursuant to the unenumerated portion of Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b). Plaintiff did not file a timely opposition. Local Rule 78-230(m). However, on

September 13, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion seeking an extension of the deadline to file

unenumerated Rule 12(b) motions, which was September 14, 2007.

An unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion is a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust the

available administrative remedies at a prison. The failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense raised

by defendants to an action. An unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion is not a motion that plaintiff would

file, as it would make no sense for plaintiff to move to dismiss his own action under Rule 12 for 

///

Case 1:05-cv-00184-LJO-SMS Document 38 Filed 10/04/07 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

failure to exhaust. For this reason, plaintiff’s motion for an extension of the unenumerated Rule

12(b) motion deadline shall be denied.

Plaintiff shall be provided with thirty additional days within which to file a response to

defendants’ motion to dismiss. If plaintiff fails to file a response, this action will be dismissed, with

prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute.

As set forth herein, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of the unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion deadline,

filed September 13, 2007, is DENIED;

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall file a

response to defendants’ motion to dismiss; and

3. If plaintiff fails to file a response to defendants’ motion to dismiss in compliance

with this order, this action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to obey a

court order and failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00184-LJO-SMS Document 38 Filed 10/04/07 Page 2 of 2