Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05282/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05282-0/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MING CHING JIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

W. HENSE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. CV-F-03-5282 REC SMS P

ORDER PROVIDING PLAINTIFF WITH THE

OPPORTUNITY TO FILE ANOTHER

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

TO DISMISS

(Doc. 43)

Plaintiff Ming Ching Jin (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 9, 2005, defendants filed a second motion to

dismiss on the ground that plaintiff failed to exhaust the administrative remedies in compliance with

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). (Doc. 43.) Plaintiff filed an opposition on February 25, 2005. (Doc. 44.)

Defendants’ first motion was denied without prejudice on the basis that defendants failed to

meet their burden as the parties moving for dismissal. Defendants’ pending motion, which is

complete within itself, includes additional evidence. Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion, however,

is not complete within itself. Based on a review of the opposition, it appears plaintiff believes that

in resolving defendants’ pending motion, the court will refer back to his opposition to the earlier

motion. Plaintiff is incorrect. In resolving defendants’ motion, the court will consider the motion,

the opposition, and the reply, if any. Plaintiff cannot assume that the court will review and consider

any other filings, including plaintiff’s opposition to defendants’ first motion. It is not the duty of the

court to mine the record for facts relevant to the pending motion to dismiss. If plaintiff wishes to

have certain arguments or evidence considered by the court in resolving defendants’ pending motion

Case 1:03-cv-05282-REC -SMS Document 56 Filed 05/09/05 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

to dismiss, plaintiff must set forth the arguments and/or evidence in an opposition that is directed

to defendants’ pending motion to dismiss. 

By this order, plaintiff has been placed on notice that the court will not consider his

opposition to the first motion to dismiss. Plaintiff shall be provided with the opportunity to file

another opposition to defendants’ pending motion, if he wishes to do so. The court will consider

only one opposition to the motion. Therefore, if plaintiff files another opposition, his opposition

filed on February 25, 2005, will not be considered. However, if plaintiff does not file another

opposition, only his opposition filed on February 25, 2005, will be considered. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff may, if he chooses, file another opposition to defendants’ pending motion

to dismiss;

2. If plaintiff chooses to file another opposition, he must do so within thirty (30) days

from the date of service of this order; and

3. If plaintiff files another opposition, his opposition filed on February 25, 2005, will

not be considered.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 9, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05282-REC -SMS Document 56 Filed 05/09/05 Page 2 of 2