Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01067/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01067-2/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- 09cv1067 MMA (RBB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY A. FRANKLIN,

CDCR #E-66269,

Civil No. 09cv1067-MMA (RBB)

Plaintiff, ORDER PROVIDING PLAINTIFF

NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS 

PURSUANT TO WYATT v.

TERHUNE AND SETTING 

BRIEFING SCHEDULE

vs.

L.E. SCRIBNER, et al., 

Defendants.

Plaintiff Gregory A. Franklin 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 to Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P.

12(b). Defendants argue Plaintiff has failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to suit

as required by 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 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

Case 3:09-cv-01067-MMA-RBB Document 54 Filed 11/08/10 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- 09cv1067 MMA (RBB)

“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 and serve it upon Defendants’ counsel of record no later than

December 20, 2010.

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

Plaintiff no later than December 27, 2010.

At that time, the Court will consider the matter fully briefed as submitted on the

papers and will thereafter issue a written Order. Unless otherwise ordered, no appearances

are required on the date set for hearing and no oral argument will be held. See S.D. Cal.

CivLR 7.1.d.1.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 8, 2010

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01067-MMA-RBB Document 54 Filed 11/08/10 Page 2 of 2