Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-03024/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-03024-1/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MUSTAFA ABDULLAH WRIGHT, 

CDCR #H-76467,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 13cv3024 BTM (NLS)

ORDER PROVIDING NOTICE 

TO PRO SE PRISONER OF

REQUIREMENTS FOR

OPPOSING SUMMARY

JUDGMENT PURSUANT 

TO KLINGELE / RAND

AND SETTING BRIEFING

SCHEDULE 

 vs.

S. PETERS; T. RUCKER; J. WINN;

H. ASBURY; E. GARZA,

Defendants.

This notice is required to be given to Plaintiff pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d

952 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1988):1

Defendants have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 562

(ECF Doc. No. 15), by which they seek to have your case dismissed for failing to exhaust your 

available administrative remedies A Motion for Summary Judgment under Rule 56 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end your case.

Klingele and Rand together require the district court “as a bare minimum,” to ensure that a pro 1

se prisoner has “fair notice of the requirements of the summary judgment rule.” Klingele, 849 F.2d at

411 (quotations omitted); Rand, 154 F.3d at 962.

Defendants have also filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to 2

FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(6). (ECF Doc. No. 14.)

- 1 - 13cv3024 BTM (NLS)

Case 3:13-cv-03024-BTM-NLS Document 16 Filed 05/09/14 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

Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a Motion for Summary Judgment. 

Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact– 

that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact that would affect the result of your case, and the

partywho asked for summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter oflaw, which will end

your case. Plaintiff is hereby provided with notice that Defendants are seeking to dismiss his

case because he failed to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). See

Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 936, 939 (9th Cir. 2012.) “Failure to exhaust under the PLRA

is ‘an affirmative defense the defendant must plead and prove.’” Albino v. Baca, __ F.3d __,

2014 WL 1317141 *8 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). If Plaintiff

wishes to oppose Defendants’ Motion, he should include in his Opposition whatever arguments,

evidentiary material, or documents he may have to show that he did, in fact, exhaust all

administrative remedies as were available to him prior to filing suit. 

If Defendants’ Motion and supporting proof is sufficient to show that he has failed to

exhaust, and Plaintiff fails to develop the record by providing evidence to the contrary as part

of his Opposition, his unexhausted claims will be dismissed and he will not be able to proceed

as to those claims in this action. 

Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment has

been calendared for hearing on June 20, 2014 in Courtroom 15B. Your Opposition (including

any supporting documents) must be filed with the Court and served on all parties by June 6,

2014. If you do not wish to oppose Defendants’ Motion, you should file and serve a “Notice

of Non-Opposition” by that same date to let both the Court and Defendants know that the Motion

is unopposed. If you do file and serve an Opposition, Defendants must file and serve their Reply

to that Opposition by June 13, 2014.

At the time appointed for hearing, the Court will, in its discretion, consider Defendant’s

Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 56 as submitted on the papers, and will

issue its written opinion soon thereafter. See S. D. CAL. CIVLR 7.1(d)(1). 

- 2 - 13cv3024 BTM (NLS)

Case 3:13-cv-03024-BTM-NLS Document 16 Filed 05/09/14 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

Thus, unless otherwise requested and ordered, no appearances are required on June 20,

2014, and no oral argument will be heard. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 9, 2014

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

- 3 - 13cv3024 BTM (NLS)

Case 3:13-cv-03024-BTM-NLS Document 16 Filed 05/09/14 Page 3 of 3