Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01426/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01426-1/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

EDDIE HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

HASKY, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:12-cv-01426-SKO-LJO (PC)

ORDER STRIKING UNENUMERATED 

RULE 12(B) MOTION AND REQUIRING 

DEFENDANTS TO FILE RESPONSIVE 

PLEADING OR MOTION WITHIN THIRTY 

DAYS

(Doc. 21) 

Plaintiff Eddie Harris (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 30, 2012. This 

action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s amended complaint against Defendants Hasky and Beltran

(“Defendants”) for endangering Plaintiff’s safety, in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the 

United States Constitution.

On March 12, 2014, Defendants 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. 

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

Case 1:12-cv-01426-LJO-SKO Document 25 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

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. Defendants’ unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion is stricken from the record;

1

and

2. Defendants have 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 1:12-cv-01426-LJO-SKO Document 25 Filed 04/08/14 Page 2 of 2