Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02313/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02313-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANNY MONTANA GUERRA,

Plaintiff,

v.

G.J. JANDA, et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.12-2313-BEN(WVG)

ORDER PROVIDING PLAINTIFF

NOTICE OF DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS

PURSUANT TO 

WYATT v. TERHUNE 

AND SETTING BRIEFING

SCHEDULE

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

13cv2313 1

Case 3:12-cv-02313-BEN-JLB Document 21 Filed 11/13/13 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

27

28

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 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

January 2, 2014. 

13cv2313 2

Case 3:12-cv-02313-BEN-JLB Document 21 Filed 11/13/13 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

27

28

2) Defendants may file a Reply to Plaintiff’s

Opposition, and serve it upon Plaintiff no later

than January 8, 2014.

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. Civ LR

7.1.d.1.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 12, 2013

 Hon. William V. Gallo

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

13cv2313 3

Case 3:12-cv-02313-BEN-JLB Document 21 Filed 11/13/13 Page 3 of 3