Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01240/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01240-8/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

WESLEY MITCHELL,

Plaintiff, No. 2:11-cv-1240 JAM GGH P

vs.

MATTHEW L. CATE, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

By Findings and Recommendations filed on May 24, 2012, this court

recommended granting defendant Miranda’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), as well as the motion to dismiss, pursuant to non-enumerated Rule

12(b) brought by defendants Clark, Davey, Gower, McDonald, Sanders and Van Leer (in which

defendant Miranda later joined as well). Plaintiff had failed to oppose the motions, which the

court found constituted a waiver of opposition and, in the alternative, the motions were deemed

to have merit. However, in light of Woods v. Carey, --- F.3d ----, 2012 WL 2626912 (9th Cir.

July 6, 2012), and notwithstanding that plaintiff was previously informed of the requirements to

oppose a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust pursuant Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108,

1120 n.14 (9th Cir. 2003), plaintiff will be informed again. 

1

Case 2:11-cv-01240-JAM-AC Document 39 Filed 07/13/12 Page 1 of 3
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

Pursuant to Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n.14 (9th Cir. 2003), the court

hereby informs plaintiff of the following requirements for opposing a motion to dismiss for

failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). Such a motion is a

request that the court dismiss without prejudice any unexhausted claims. The moving party may

submit affidavits or declarations under penalty of perjury and admissible documents to support

the motion to dismiss. To oppose the motion, plaintiff may likewise file declarations under

penalty of perjury and admissible documents. Plaintiff may rely on plaintiff’s statements made

under penalty of perjury in the operative complaint if that complaint shows that plaintiff has

personal knowledge of the matters stated and plaintiff specifies the parts of the operative 

complaint on which plaintiff relies. Plaintiff may also rely on one or more affidavits or

declarations sworn to by other persons who have personal knowledge of relevant matters. In

addition, plaintiff may rely on written records, but plaintiff must prove that the records are what

plaintiff asserts they are. If plaintiff fails to contradict defendant’s evidence with admissible

evidence, the court may rely on defendant’s evidence. In the event both sides submit matters

outside of the pleadings, the court may look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of

fact. If plaintiff does not file a written opposition to the motion, the court may consider the

failure to act as a waiver of opposition to the motion. See L.R. 230(l). If the court grants the

motion to dismiss, whether opposed or unopposed, plaintiff’s unexhausted claims will be

dismissed without prejudice. A motion or opposition supported by unsigned affidavits or

declarations will be stricken.

In addition, plaintiff filed timely objections to the findings and recommendations

recommending dismissal of this action, which he inappositely characterizes as a motion for relief

from judgment under Rule 60(b). Plaintiff attaches documentation which he avers demonstrates

that since February 19, 2012, the prison facility in which he is housed has undergone “a series of

modified programs that made inmate movement next to impossible for most.” See docket # 38. 

He seeks therein leave to file his opposition to the motions. Although plaintiff should have, at a

2

Case 2:11-cv-01240-JAM-AC Document 39 Filed 07/13/12 Page 2 of 3
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

minimum, submitted with his objections any substantive opposition, the court will vacate the

pending findings and recommendations. This will very generously afford plaintiff an additional

opportunity to oppose the 12(b)(6) motion, as well as afford him an adequate opportunity to

benefit from the fair notice contained herein in light of the recent Woods ruling, with respect to

opposing the non-enumerated 12(b) motion. Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that, without

exception, there will be no further extension of time. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed on May 24, 2012 (docket # 37), are

hereby VACATED; 

2. Plaintiff is granted twenty-one (21) days to file his opposition to defendants’

motions to dismiss both pursuant to nonenumerated Rule 12(b) and Rule 12(b)(6); and

3. There will be no further extension of time. 

DATED: July 12, 2012

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

GGH: 009

mitc1240.brf

3

Case 2:11-cv-01240-JAM-AC Document 39 Filed 07/13/12 Page 3 of 3