Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00733/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00733-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

18-cv-00733-JLB 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ABRAHAM STAPLETON, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

E. CRUZ, et al., 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 18-cv-00733-JLB 

ORDER PROVIDING PLAINTIFF 

NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT RE FAILURE TO 

EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE 

REMEDIES 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant 

to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

 Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 56 and Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). In their 

Motion, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust all available administrative 

remedies prior to filing this lawsuit, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act 

(“PLRA”). See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). 

“The PLRA mandates that inmates exhaust all available administrative remedies 

before filing “any suit challenging prison conditions,” including, but not limited to, suits 

under § 1983.” Albino, 747 F.3d at 1171 (citing Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85 (2006)). 

“Exhaustion should be decided, if feasible, before reaching the merits of a prisoner’s 

Case 3:18-cv-00733-JLB Document 23 Filed 01/24/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

18-cv-00733-JLB 

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

claim.” Id. at 1170. The Ninth Circuit has held that “the appropriate procedural device for 

pretrial determination of whether administrative remedies have been exhausted under the 

PLRA . . . is a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56.” Id. at 1168. 

 Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a Motion for Summary 

Judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there is no genuine issue 

of material fact--that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact that would affect the result 

of your case, the party who asked for summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter 

of law, which will end your case. When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary 

judgment that is properly supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot 

simply rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in 

declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as 

provided by Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts shown in the defendants’ declarations and 

documents and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. 

 Accordingly, Plaintiff is hereby provided with notice that Defendants have asked the 

Court to find, as a matter of law, that he failed to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Plaintiff is further advised of his opportunity to include in his 

Opposition to Defendants’ Motion whatever arguments and documentary evidence he may 

have to show that he did, in fact, exhaust all administrative remedies related to his claims 

as were available to him prior to filing suit. See Marella v. Terhune, 568 F.3d 1024, 1028 

(9th Cir. 2009) (a district court must “effectively give [Plaintiff] fair notice that he should 

have submitted evidence regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies”). 

 The Court cautions Plaintiff that if he does not submit his own evidence in 

opposition, summary judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against him. If summary 

judgment is granted, his unexhausted claims will be dismissed and there will be no trial on 

the merits as to his unexhausted claims. 

 Defendants’ Motion is currently set for hearing on February 25, 2019 before the 

Honorable Larry A. Burns. The Court hereby RESETS the hearing for April 5, 2019 at 

11:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Burkhardt. Accordingly, Plaintiff must file an 

Case 3:18-cv-00733-JLB Document 23 Filed 01/24/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

18-cv-00733-JLB 

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

opposition to Defendants’ Motion and serve it upon Defendants’ counsel of record no later 

than March 15, 2019. Defendants may file a reply no later than March 29, 2019. 

 At the time set for hearing, the Court will consider Defendants’ Motion fully briefed 

as submitted on the papers. Unless otherwise ordered, no appearances are required on the 

date set for hearing and no oral argument will be heard. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 7.1.d.1. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 23, 2019 

Case 3:18-cv-00733-JLB Document 23 Filed 01/24/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3