Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00652/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00652-5/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID REYES, No. 2:12-cv-0652-KJM-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

CHRISTOPHER SMITH, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff originally filed this action in March 2012. The court found service

appropriate for defendants Smith and Heatley, and authorized service in June 2012. In December

2012, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative

remedies. The court granted the unopposed motion, finding plaintiff did not exhaust his

administrative remedies because he failed to identify the defendants as the staff members

responsible for the medication determination he was grieving, which was a procedural

requirement to properly exhaust his administrative remedies. Plaintiff appealed this court’s

decision and dismissal. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, on a matter of first impression,

1

Case 2:12-cv-00652-KJM-DMC Document 35 Filed 04/20/16 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

disagreed with this court’s determination, finding that because the prison addressed the merits of

plaintiff’s grievance despite his failure to comply with a procedural rule, the prison officials were

on notice and had an opportunity to resolve the issue. The Ninth Circuit thus reversed this

court’s decision, and remanded for further proceedings.

The decision of the Ninth Circuit is essentially a denial of defendants’ motion to

dismiss. As such, the defendants will now be required to file an answer to plaintiff’s complaint

(Doc. 1). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendants shall file an answer

to plaintiff’s complaint within 30 days of the date of this order. 

DATED: April 19, 2016

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 2:12-cv-00652-KJM-DMC Document 35 Filed 04/20/16 Page 2 of 2