Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00401/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00401-1/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRIN ARMSTRONG, Civil No. 11-0401-WQH (WVG)

Plaintiff,

ORDER PROVIDING PLAINTIFF

NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

TO DISMISS 

PURSUANT TO 

WYATT v. TERHUNE

AND SETTING 

BRIEFING SCHEDULE

vs.

LARRY SMALL, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to the Civil

Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b).

Defendants argue Plaintiff has failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to suit as required by 42

U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

“In deciding a motion to dismiss for a failure to exhaust nonjudicial remedies, the court may look

beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact.” Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119-20

(9th Cir. 2003) [citing Ritza v. Int’l Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union, 837 F.2d 365, 369 (9th

Cir. 1988) (per curiam)]. If the court looks beyond the pleadings when deciding a motion to dismiss for

failure to exhaust, “a procedure closely analogous to summary 

Case 3:11-cv-00401-WQH-WVG Document 13 Filed 06/06/11 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-

judgment,” the Court “must assure that [the plaintiff] has fair notice of his opportunity to develop a

record.” Id. at 1120 n.14; see also Marella v. Terhune, 568 F.3d 1024, 1028 (9th Cir. 2009) [remanding

case to district court where court failed to “effectively give (plaintiff) fair notice that he should have

submitted evidence regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies].

Accordingly, Plaintiff is hereby provided with notice that Defendants have asked the Court to

dismiss his case because he failed to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

Plaintiff is further advised of his opportunity to include in his Opposition to Defendants’ Motion

whatever arguments and documentary evidence he may have to show that he did, in fact, exhaust all

administrative remedies as were available to him prior to filing suit. See Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119-21;

Marella, 568 F.3d at 1028. 

Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, the Court sets the following briefing schedule:

1) Plaintiff, if he chooses, may file an Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and

serve it upon Defendants’ counsel of record no later than July 25, 2011 

2) Defendants may file a Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition, and serve it upon Plaintiff no later

than August 1, 2011.

At that time, the Court will consider the matter fully briefed as submitted on the papers and will

thereafter issue a written Order. Unless otherwise ordered, no appearances are required on the date set

for hearing and no oral argument will be held. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 7.1.d.1.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 6, 2011

 Hon. William V. Gallo

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00401-WQH-WVG Document 13 Filed 06/06/11 Page 2 of 2