Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-06526/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-06526-8/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PETER BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. VALOFF,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:01-cv-06526-OWW-LJO PC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF THIRTY

DAYS WITHIN WHICH TO FILE A NEW

OPPOSITION IF HE SO CHOOSES

On August 25, 2006, defendant Valoff filed a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust.

Although plaintiff has already opposed the motion, plaintiff was not provided with notice of the

requirements for opposing a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d

1108, 1120 n.14 (9th Cir. 2003). In a separate order issued concurrently with this order, the court

provided plaintiff with the required notice.

Plaintiff will be provided with the opportunity to file a new opposition, if he wishes to do so.

In the alternative, plaintiff may take no action and rest on the opposition he filed on September 12,

2006. The court will not consider two oppositions. If plaintiff opts to file a new opposition in light

of the notice provided to him, he must do so within thirty days and old opposition will not be

considered by the court. Defendant may reply to any new opposition and if he does so, his reply filed

on September 13, 2006, will not be considered.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff is granted leave to file a new opposition in light of the warning notice

provided to him by the court relating to motions to dismiss for failure to exhaust;

Case 1:01-cv-06526-DLB Document 71 Filed 01/19/07 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

2. If plaintiff chooses to file a new opposition, he must do so within thirty (30) days

from the date of service of this order; and

3. If plaintiff files a new opposition, defendant may reply within the time frame set forth

in Local Rule 78-230(m).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 18, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-06526-DLB Document 71 Filed 01/19/07 Page 2 of 2