Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01137/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01137-6/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVON E. McCOY,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. STRATTON, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:12-cv-1137 WBS DB

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants moved for summary judgment based on plaintiff’s alleged 

failure to exhaust his available administrative remedies prior to filing suit as required. (ECF No. 

36.) United States District Judge William B. Shubb adopted the findings and recommendations 

of then-Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd in granting in part and denying in part defendants’ 

motion. (ECF No. 44.) In their summary judgment motion, defendants requested permission to 

file a second motion for summary judgment on the merits if the first one concerning exhaustion 

was not granted in full. (ECF No. 36 at 6 n. 1.) The court did not address that request in the 

findings and recommendation or the order on summary judgment. 

After filing an answer (ECF No. 45) to plaintiff’s complaint, defendants filed a second 

motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 51) addressing the merits of plaintiff’s complaint. 

Plaintiff filed an opposition (ECF No. 64) to the motion, but also filed a motion to strike (ECF 

Case 2:12-cv-01137-WBS-DB Document 77 Filed 11/02/16 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

27

28

2

No. 66) the second summary judgment for failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure and the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California. 

For the following reasons, plaintiff’s motion to strike is denied. 

District courts in the Ninth Circuit “have discretion to permit successive motions for 

summary judgment.” Hoffman v. Tonnemacher, 593 F.3d 908, 911 (9th Cir. 2010). “[A] 

successive motion for summary judgment is particularly appropriate on an expanded factual 

record.” Id. Furthermore, where a district court addresses only the issue of exhaustion of 

administrative remedies in the first summary judgment motion, “‘allowing a party to file a second 

motion for summary judgment is logical, and it fosters the just, speedy, and inexpensive 

resolution of suits.’” Hill v. Davis, --- F. App’x ---, No. 15–15923, 2016 WL 4499806 (9th Cir. 

Aug. 26, 2016) (quoting Hoffman, 593 F.3d at 911-12). 

Plaintiff’s motion to strike is denied because the first summary judgment motion in this 

matter addressed only the administrative remedies issue. In Albino v. Baca, the Ninth Circuit 

recently held that “[e]xhaustion should be decided, if feasible, before reaching the merits of a 

prisoner’s claim,” and that a summary judgment motion may be “directed solely to the issue of 

exhaustion.” 747 F.3d 1162, 1170 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). Pursuant to Albino, the court 

addressed the administrative remedies issue at the outset without considering the merits of the 

case. Now, pursuant to Hoffman, the court has discretion to allow a second motion for summary 

judgment based upon an expanded record. There is now an expanded record on which to address 

the merits of the case, so, accordingly, the court grants defendants’ request to file a second 

summary judgment on the merits and denies plaintiff’s motion to strike. The court will address 

the second motion for summary judgment in a forthcoming findings and recommendations. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to strike is denied. 

Dated: November 2, 2016

DLB:10

Case 2:12-cv-01137-WBS-DB Document 77 Filed 11/02/16 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

27

28

3

DLB1 / Prisoner - Civil Rights / mcco1137.mts

Case 2:12-cv-01137-WBS-DB Document 77 Filed 11/02/16 Page 3 of 3