Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02256/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02256-3/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD E. RICKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:10-cv-02256-LJO-SKO (PC)

ORDER STRIKING UNENUMERATED 

RULE 12(B) MOTION AND REQUIRING 

DEFENDANT TO FILE RESPONSIVE 

PLEADING OR MOTION WITHIN THIRTY 

DAYS

(Doc. 26) 

Plaintiff Ronald E. Ricks, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 6, 2010. This action is 

proceeding on Plaintiff’s amended complaint against Defendant Bondoc for acting with deliberate 

indifference to Plaintiff’s medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United 

States Constitution.

On March 21, 2014, Defendant filed an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss on the 

ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust the available administrative remedies. 42 U.S.C. § 

1997e(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). Plaintiff has not yet filed a response to the motion. Local Rule 

230(l).

On April 3, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a 

decision overruling Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003) with respect to the 

proper procedural device for raising the issue of administrative exhaustion. Albino v. Baca, No. 

Case 1:10-cv-02256-LJO-SKO Document 30 Filed 04/08/14 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

10-55702, 2014 WL 1317141, at *1 (9th Cir. Apr. 3, 2014) (en banc). Following the decision in 

Albino, Defendants may raise the issue of exhaustion in either (1) a motion to dismiss pursuant to 

Rule 12(b)(6), in the rare event the failure to exhaust is clear on the face of the complaint, or (2) a 

motion for summary judgment. Albino, 2014 WL 1317141, at *4 (quotation marks omitted). An 

unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion is no longer the proper procedural device for raising the issue of 

exhaustion. Id. 

Accordingly, in light of the decision in Albino, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion is stricken from the record;1and

2. Defendant has thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order within which 

to file a responsive pleading or motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 8, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1 District courts have broad discretion to control their own dockets, M. M. v. Lafayette School Dist., 681 F.3d 1082, 

1091 (9th Cir. 2012), and the Court elects to strike Defendants’ unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss in light of 

the decision in Albino. A stricken document is a nullity which is not considered by the Court for any reason, First 

Informational Order, ¶1 n. 1, and given that Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se, striking the motion and requiring 

Defendants to re-notice it under Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 56, accompanied by the requisite notice, serves to clarify the 

record and place Plaintiff on “fair notice” regarding what is required of him in responding to the motion, Woods v. 

Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 938-40 (9th Cir. 2012).

Case 1:10-cv-02256-LJO-SKO Document 30 Filed 04/08/14 Page 2 of 2