Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02525/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02525-9/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KENNETH A. GRIFFIN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

J. CLARK KELSO, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:10-cv-2525 MCE AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. On remand, this case proceeds on plaintiff’s claims against defendants Bal, 

Sahota, Nangalama, Masuret, and Woods. ECF No. 50. 

 Plaintiff’s claims against defendants were previously dismissed for failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies. ECF Nos. 37, 42. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit found that the motion to 

dismiss was granted in error because plaintiff claimed that he was satisfied with the 

administrative relief he received at the first and second levels of review, but held that on remand 

defendants could contest whether plaintiff was actually satisfied using the procedures set forth in 

Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1169-71 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). ECF No. 50 at 2-3. 

 Defendants were ordered to advise the court whether they intended to file a motion for 

summary judgment based on the claim that plaintiff was not in fact satisfied by the relief he 

received and that if they intended to file such a motion, they were to also advise whether limited 

Case 2:10-cv-02525-MCE-AC Document 63 Filed 10/26/15 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

discovery was necessary. ECF No. 60. Defendants were to provide a proposed schedule for any 

anticipated discovery or summary-judgment motion. Id. Instead of providing the information 

requested by the court, defendants have proceeded to file a motion for summary judgment arguing 

that plaintiff was not satisfied and therefore did not exhaust his administrative remedies. ECF 

No. 62. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff shall file a response to defendants’ motion for summary judgment within 

twenty-one days of the filing of this order. 

2. Discovery is stayed and deadlines for conducting discovery and filing merits-based 

dispositive motions will be set, if necessary, upon resolution of defendants’ currently pending 

summary-judgment motion. 

DATED: October 26, 2015 

Case 2:10-cv-02525-MCE-AC Document 63 Filed 10/26/15 Page 2 of 2