Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01948/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01948-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES PABLO PATTERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01948-LJO-JLT (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION 

FOR EARLY DISCOVERY AND TO 

COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO PROVIDE 

ADMISSIONS, INTERROGATORIES AND 

PRODUCTION

(Doc. 41)

Plaintiff, James Pablo Patterson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding on his claims in 

the Second Amended Complaint for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's safety under the Eighth 

Amendment against Defendants Warden C. Lawless, Sergeant Finegan, and Correctional Officers 

S. Corona and R. Borbon (Doc. 21). 

On March 7, 2014, Defendants filed an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss on the 

ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust the available administrative remedies. 42 U.S.C. § 

1997e(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). 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 affirmative defense of 

exhaustion under § 1997e(a). Albino v. Baca, No. 10-55702, 2014 WL 1317141, at *1 (9th Cir. 

Case 1:12-cv-01948-DAD-JLT Document 42 Filed 04/24/14 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

Apr. 3, 2014) (en banc). Thus, on April 9, 2014, the Court struck Defendants' motion to dismiss 

and ordered them to file a responsive pleading. (Doc. 39.) 

On April 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed a "Motion to Compell [sic] Defendants to provide: 

Admission, Interrogatories and Production" (Doc. 41) seeking the opening of discovery to obtain

documents for use in his opposition of Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 32). On the last page 

of his motion, Plaintiff indicates that he is unsure if he is still required to file an opposition and/or 

whether Defendants' motion to dismiss "will go through." (Doc. 41, p. 22.) 

As stated in the First Informational Order that issued on December 4, 2012, "[w]hen a 

document is stricken, it becomes a nullity and is not considered by the court for any purpose." 

(Doc. 6, p.2, n.1.) Thus, since stricken, Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 32) is a nullity, will 

not be ruled on, and Plaintiff need not file any opposition to it. 

Defendants have been ordered to file a responsive pleading. (Doc. 39.) As also stated in 

the First Informational Order, discovery will be opened after Defendants appear in this case. 

(Doc. 6, ¶8.) Thus, Plaintiff's request to open discovery and compel Defendants to respond is 

premature.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED, that Plaintiff's "Motion to Compell [sic] 

Defendants to provide: Admission, Interrogatories and Production," filed April 18, 2014 (Doc. 

41), is premature and is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 24, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01948-DAD-JLT Document 42 Filed 04/24/14 Page 2 of 2