Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01948/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01948-13/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 GRANTING STAY OF 

DISCOVERY PENDING RESOLUTION OF 

DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. 53)

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 filed this action on November 

30, 2012 (Doc. 1) and 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 USC § 1997e(a); 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). 

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. Apr. 3, 2014) (en banc). Thus, 

Case 1:12-cv-01948-DAD-JLT Document 54 Filed 07/09/14 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

on April 9, 2014, Defendants' motion to dismiss was stricken from the record. (Doc. 39.) 

Defendants then filed a motion for summary judgment raising their affirmative defense of 

exhaustion under § 1997 (Doc. 43) and the Amended Second Informational Order issued on May 

20, 2014 noting the requirements for Plaintiff to oppose Defendants' motion for summary 

judgment (Doc. 44). Subsequently, Defendants were ordered to and filed their responsive 

pleading (Docs. 39, 45, 49) and the Discovery and Scheduling Order issued on June 6, 2014 

(Doc. 51). That same day, Plaintiff filed his opposition to Defendants ' motion for summary 

judgment. (Doc. 52.) 

On July 1, 2014, Defendants filed a request for stay of discovery pending resolution of 

their motion for summary judgment based on the affirmative defense of Plaintiff's failure to 

exhaust available administrative remedies prior to filing suit as required by 42 USC § 1997e(a). 

(Doc. 53.) In their request, Defendants state that Plaintiff has propounded discovery that pertains 

to the merits of this case, not to the issue of exhaustion. (Id.) Defendants argue that discovery 

should be stayed until their motion is resolved as they provided all documents pertaining to the 

issue of exhaustion with their motion for summary judgment. (Id.) It is of further note, that 

having been notified of his requirements to oppose the motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff 

filed an opposition rather than request postponement of consideration of Defendants' motion to 

conduct further discovery on the exhaustion issue under Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. (Doc. 52.) 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED, that Defendants' Request for Stay of Discovery 

Pending Resolution of Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust, filed July 1, 2014 

(Doc. 53), is GRANTED and all discovery is STAYED in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 9, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01948-DAD-JLT Document 54 Filed 07/09/14 Page 2 of 2