Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00444/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00444-18/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN DARNELL BRYANT,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. SHAEFER, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:11-cv-00444-AWI-SKO (PC)

ORDER (1) STRIKING UNENUMERATED 

RULE 12(B) MOTION ON PROCEDURAL 

GROUNDS, (2) VACATING EVIDENTIARY 

HEARING AND ORDER FILED ON APRIL 

2, 2014, (3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTIONS AS MOOT, AND (4) 

REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO FILE 

RESPONSIVE PLEADING OR MOTION 

WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

(Docs. 31, 32, 33, 82, 90 and 91) 

Plaintiff Kevin Darnell Bryant, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 17, 2011. This action is 

proceeding on Plaintiff’s amended complaint against Defendants Schaefer, Lopez, Keldgord, 

Harrington, and Flynn (“Defendants”) arising out of the policy and practice of crushing and 

floating Gabapentin and Tramadol, which led to internal injury to Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges a 

claim for violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust, filed on 

March 20, 2013. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The motion was filed pursuant to the unenumerated 

portion of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b), and it is currently set for an evidentiary hearing 

on June 19, 2014, due to the existence of factual disputes requiring an assessment of witness 

credibility. Morton v. Hall, 599 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Case 1:11-cv-00444-AWI-SKO Document 92 Filed 04/08/14 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

However, on April 3, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued 

a decision overruling Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003) with respect to the 

proper procedural device for raising the issue of administrative exhaustion. Albino v. Baca, No. 

10-55702, 2014 WL 1317141, at *1 (9th Cir. Apr. 3, 2014) (en banc). Following the decision in 

Albino, Defendants may raise the issue of exhaustion in either (1) a motion to dismiss pursuant to 

Rule 12(b)(6), in the rare event the failure to exhaust is clear on the face of the complaint, or (2) a 

motion for summary judgment. Albino, 2014 WL 1317141, at *4 (quotation marks omitted). An 

unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion is no longer the proper procedural device for raising the issue of 

exhaustion. Id. 

Accordingly, in light of the decision in Albino, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion is STRICKEN from the record;1

2. The evidentiary hearing set for June 19, 2014, is VACATED;

3. The order filed on April 2, 2014, requiring the parties to meet and confer regarding 

witness issues is VACATED;

4. Plaintiff’s motions regarding witness issues, filed on January 17, 2014, and March 

24, 2014, are DENIED as moot in light of this order; and

5. Defendants have thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order within 

which to file a responsive pleading or motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 8, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1 District courts have broad discretion to control their own dockets, M. M. v. Lafayette School Dist., 681 F.3d 1082, 

1091 (9th Cir. 2012), and the Court elects to strike Defendants’ unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss in light of 

the decision in Albino. A stricken document is a nullity which is not considered by the Court for any reason, First 

Informational Order, ¶1 n. 1, and given that Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se, striking the motion and requiring 

Defendants to re-notice it under Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 56, accompanied by the requisite notice, serves to clarify the 

record and place Plaintiff on “fair notice” regarding what is required of him in responding to the motion, Woods v. 

Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 938-40 (9th Cir. 2012).

Case 1:11-cv-00444-AWI-SKO Document 92 Filed 04/08/14 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

Case 1:11-cv-00444-AWI-SKO Document 92 Filed 04/08/14 Page 3 of 3