Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01243/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01243-8/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- E.D. California 1:08cv1243 BTM (POR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Fresno Division

DURRELL PUCKETT,

CDCR #G-05549,

Civil No. 1:08cv1243 BTM (POR)

Plaintiff, ORDER PROVIDING PLAINTIFF

NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS 

PURSUANT TO 

WYATT v. TERHUNE

AND SETTING 

BRIEFING SCHEDULE

vs.

NORTH KERN STATE PRISON

EMPLOYEES, et al.,

Defendants.

On February 16, 2010, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Amended

Complaint pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b) [Doc. No. 42]. Defendants move to dismiss on

grounds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to suit pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

“In deciding a motion to dismiss for a failure to exhaust nonjudicial remedies, the court

may look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact.” Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d

1108, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Ritza v. Int’l Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union,

837 F.2d 365, 369 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam)). If the court looks beyond the pleadings when

deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust, “a procedure closely analogous to summary

Case 1:08-cv-01243-BTM-POR Document 43 Filed 02/22/10 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- E.D. California 1:08cv1243 BTM (POR)

judgment,” the Court “must assure that [the plaintiff] has fair notice of his opportunity to

develop a record.” Id. at 1120 n.14; see also Marella v. Terhune, 568 F.3d 1024, 1028 (9th Cir.

2009) (remanding case to district court where court failed to “effectively give [plaintiff] fair

notice that he should have submitted evidence regarding exhaustion of administrative

remedies.”)

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

Court to dismiss his case because 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 as were available to him prior to filing suit.

See Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119-21; Marella, 568 F.3d at 1028. 

Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, the Court sets the following briefing schedule:

1) Plaintiff, if he chooses, may file an Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

[Doc. No. 42], and serve it upon Defendants’ counsel of record no later than

Friday, March 26, 2010. 

2) Defendants may file a Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition, and serve it upon Plaintiff

no later than Friday, April 2, 2010.

The Court will consider the matter fully briefed as submitted on the papers as of Friday,

April 9, 2010, and will thereafter issue a written Order ruling on Defendants’ Motion without

requiring any appearances or holding any oral argument.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 22, 2010

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 1:08-cv-01243-BTM-POR Document 43 Filed 02/22/10 Page 2 of 2