Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05488/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05488-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens 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

JOHN CARLOS DUARTE,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. D. ANDREWS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-5488-AWI-LJO-P

ORDER NOTIFYING PLAINTIFF THAT THE

BASIS OF DEFENDANTS’ EXHAUSTION

MOTION IS THE UNENUMERATED

PORTION OF RULE 12(B), AND NOTIFYING

THE PARTIES THAT DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED BY THE

COURT ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS

PROCEDURALLY DEFICIENT

(Doc. 31) 

Plaintiff John Carlos Duarte (“plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau

of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil rights by federal

actors. This action is proceeding against defendants Puentes, Duffle, and Gardner for violating the

Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. On August 1, 2005, defendants Puentes and

Duffle filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings or in the alternative for summary judgment.

Defendants argue that plaintiff failed to exhaust the available administrative remedies and that they

are entitled to judgment on plaintiff’s claim against them. By this order, the parties are notified of

two deficiencies in defendants’ pending motion.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust the available administrative remedies

was not properly noticed. Plaintiff is hereby notified that the motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust

Case 1:03-cv-05488-SMS Document 33 Filed 08/02/05 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

is brought pursuant to the unenumerated portion of Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. Plaintiff was notified of the requirements for opposing unenumerated Rule 12(b)motions

by order filed September 8, 2004. Defendants’ counsel is directed to properly notice the basis of

future exhaustion motions filed with this court.

Defendants’ unenumeratedRule 12(b)motion andmotion for judgment on the pleadings filed

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) will be considered by the court. However,

defendants’ motion for summary judgment in the alternative will not be considered. The motion

does not comply with Local Rule 56-260 and as such is procedurally deficient. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05488-SMS Document 33 Filed 08/02/05 Page 2 of 2