Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02053/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02053-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Arron Eugene Mowry, 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

Unknown Knight, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 13-2053-PHX-RCB (SPL) 

 O R D E R 

 Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Knight and Evans 

(Doc. 12). The motion will be denied without prejudice to refiling. 

 In a recent decision, the Ninth Circuit held that the failure-to-exhaust defense must 

be raised by summary judgment; it is no longer considered a matter of abatement to be 

raised in an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion. Albino v. Baca, --- F.3d ----, 2014 WL 

1317141, at *1 (9th Cir. April 3, 2014), overruling Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 

1119-20 (9th Cir. 2003). 

 The pending Motion to Dismiss for failure to exhaust was filed as an 

unenumerated Rule 12(b)(b) motion. Consequently, Plaintiff was not on notice of the 

standard to be applied to the exhaustion issue, nor was he apprised of the requirements 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 56.1. See 

Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 960-61 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) (upon the filing of a 

Case 2:13-cv-02053-SMM Document 38 Filed 04/22/14 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

summary judgment motion, a pro se prisoner must be given notice of the requirements 

under Rule 56). In addition, the Motion to Dismiss does not conform to the Local Rules 

governing summary judgment. See LRCiv 56.1. The Court therefore declines to 

construe Defendants’ motion as one under Rule 56. Because neither party had the benefit 

of the Albino decision, the motion will be denied without prejudice to refiling as a 

summary judgment motion. 

IT IS ORDERED withdrawing the reference to the Magistrate Judge as to 

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12) and it is denied without prejudice to refiling as 

a summary judgment motion. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s SurReply (Doc. 37) is denied as moot. 

 DATED this 17th day of April, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-02053-SMM Document 38 Filed 04/22/14 Page 2 of 2