Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-05722/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-05722-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHEN DUANE CHIARA, 

Plaintiff(s),

 v.

T. HAUGER, et al.,

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 11-5722 CRB (PR)

ORDER

Plaintiff, a prisoner at the Humboldt County Jail (HCJ) in Eureka,

California, filed a pro se Second Amended Complaint (SAC) under 42 U.S.C. §

1983 alleging that on three separate occasions mail room staff improperly refused

his incoming mail on grounds that it was gang related.

Per order filed on November 7, 2012, the court found that, liberally

construed, plaintiff's allegations state a cognizable § 1983 claim for violation of

the First Amendment against HCJ mail room officers T. Hauger and S. Beck, and 

ordered the United States Marshal to serve these two defendants.

Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 56 on the grounds that (1) plaintiff did not exhaust his

administrative remedies and (2) defendants did not violate plaintiff's

constitutional rights. They have accompanied the motion by the requisite Rand

notice of what is required of plaintiff in order to oppose a motion for summary

judgment.

Case 3:11-cv-05722-CRB Document 21 Filed 01/07/13 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 2

Defendants' motion for summary judgment properly raises their claim that

they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there is no evidence that

defendants had any involvement in the alleged violations. But it is well

established that a nonexhaustion defense should be raised in an unenumerated

Rule 12(b) motion rather than in a motion for summary judgment. Wyatt v.

Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003). In deciding such a motion – a

motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust nonjudicial remedies – the court may

look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact. Id. at 1119-20. 

Consequently, such a motion requires its own notice as to what plaintiff must do

in order to oppose the motion. A Rand notice about summary judgment

procedures will not suffice. See Stratton v. Buck, 697 F.3d 1004, 1008-09 (9th

Cir. 2012).

In order to expedite these proceedings, the court will treat defendants'

nonexhaustion defense as a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust nonjudicial

remedies and hereby gives plaintiff the requisite notice of what he must do to

oppose the motion:

Plaintiff is advised that a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust available

administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) will, if granted, end your

case, albeit without prejudice. You must "develop a record" and present it in

your opposition in order to dispute any "factual record" presented by the

defendants in their motion to dismiss. Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1120 n.14. You have

the right to present any evidence to show that you did exhaust your available

administrative remedies before coming to federal court. Such evidence may

include: (1) declarations, which are statements signed under penalty of perjury by

you or others who have personal knowledge of relevant matters; (2) authenticated

documents – documents accompanied by a declaration showing where they came

Case 3:11-cv-05722-CRB Document 21 Filed 01/07/13 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 3

from and why they are authentic, or other sworn papers such as answers to

interrogatories or depositions; (3) statements in your complaint insofar as they

were made under penalty of perjury and they show that you have personal

knowledge of the matters state therein. In considering a motion to dismiss for

failure to exhaust, the court can decide disputed issues of fact with regard to this

portion of the case. Stratton, 697 F.3d at 1008. 

Plaintiff shall file an opposition, or statement of non-opposition, to

defendants' motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss for failure to

exhaust administrative remedies by no later than January 31, 2013. Defendants

shall file a reply to any opposition within 15 days thereafter.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: Jan. 3, 2013 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\CR.11\Chiara, S.11-5722.notice.wpd

Case 3:11-cv-05722-CRB Document 21 Filed 01/07/13 Page 3 of 3