Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02027/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02027-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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 

JDN 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Ronald M. Feldmeier, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

P. Hauser, et al. 

Defendants. 

No. CV 13-2027-PHX-DGC (BSB) 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff Ronald M. Feldmeier brought this pro se civil rights action under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 against P. Hauser and R. Williams, officers at the La Palma Correctional 

Center in Eloy, Arizona (Doc. 1). Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for 

failure to exhaust administrative remedies (Doc. 13). Feldmeier opposes to the motion 

(Doc. 15). The Court will summarily deny the motion without prejudice to refiling. 

I. Background 

In his Complaint, Feldmeier alleged that Defendants violated his Eighth 

Amendment rights when they failed to protect him from an assault by his cell mate 

(Doc. 1). Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint on the ground that Feldmeier 

failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required under the Prison Litigation Reform 

Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (Doc. 13, Exs. A-B). The Court issued a Notice to Feldmeier 

informing him of the consequences if a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil 

Case 2:13-cv-02027-DGC Document 17 Filed 05/07/14 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

Procedure 12(b) is granted (Doc. 14). The Court received Feldmeier’s response on 

April 1, 2014 (Doc. 15). 

II. Exhaustion 

 In a recent decision, the Ninth Circuit held that the failure-to-exhaust defense must 

be raised by summary judgment; it is no longer considered a matter of abatement to be 

raised in an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion. Albino v. Baca, --- F.3d ----, 2014 WL 

1317141, at *1, 4 (9th Cir. April 3, 2014), overruling Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108 

(9th Cir. 2003). The pending Motion to Dismiss for failure to exhaust was filed as an 

unenumerated Rule 12(b)(b) motion (Doc. 13 at 5).1

 Consequently, Feldmeier was not on 

notice that the summary judgment standard would apply to the exhaustion issue, nor was 

he apprised of the requirements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Local Rule 

of Civil Procedure 56.1. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 960-61 (9th Cir. 1998) (en 

banc) (upon the filing of a summary judgment motion, a pro se prisoner must be given 

notice of the requirements under Rule 56). In addition, the Motion to Dismiss does not 

conform to the Local Rules governing summary judgment. See LRCiv 56.1. The Court 

therefore declines to construe Defendants’ motion as one under Rule 56. Because neither 

party had the benefit of the Albino decision, the motion will be denied without prejudice 

to refiling. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Defendants’ Motion 

to Dismiss (Doc. 13). 

 

 

1

 In their reply, Defendants acknowledge the recent Albino decision but request that the Court decide their motion under the Wyatt standard (Doc. 16 at 1 n. 1). That 

request is denied. 

Case 2:13-cv-02027-DGC Document 17 Filed 05/07/14 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

27 

28 

 (2) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13) is denied without prejudice to 

refiling. 

 Dated this 7th day of May, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-02027-DGC Document 17 Filed 05/07/14 Page 3 of 3