Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02045/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02045-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
B. Atkinson
Defendant
Raymond McGinnis
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

RAYMOND McGINNIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

B. ATKINSON, 

Defendant.

1:12cv02045 AWI DLB PC

ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR 

FAILURE TO EXHAUST

(Document 25)

ORDER CONVERTING DEFENDANT’S 

UNENUMERATED 12(B) MOTION TO 

DISMISS BASED ON EXHAUSTION TO 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO NOTIFY 

THE COURT WHETHER ADDITIONAL 

DISCOVERY IS NEEDED WITHIN THIRTY 

(30) DAYS

NOTICE AND WARNING OF 

REQUIREMENTS FOR OPPOSING 

DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

MOTION

This is a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Raymond McGinnis, a state 

prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff filed this action on December 17, 2012. 

The action is proceeding against Defendant Atkinson for violation of the Eighth Amendment.

On March 20, 2014, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations that Defendant’s 

December 13, 2013, Motion to Dismiss for failure to exhaust be granted.

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, 

Case 1:12-cv-02045-AWI-DLB Document 26 Filed 04/16/14 Page 1 of 4
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

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, pursuant to Albino, the Court VACATES the March 20, 2014, Finding and 

Recommendations and CONVERTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss into a Motion for Summary 

Judgment. Within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order, the parties SHALL inform 

the Court whether any additional discovery is needed related to exhaustion, and if so, what type of 

discovery.1 Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 56(d).

Once the discovery issue is addressed, the Court will set a further briefing schedule for the 

Motion for Summary Judgment. The parties are relieved of their obligation to file a Separate 

Statement of Undisputed Facts.

The Court hereby notifies Plaintiff of the following rights and requirements for opposing the 

motion2:

1. A motion for summary judgment is a request for judgment on some or all of 

Plaintiff’s claims in favor of Defendant without trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Defendant’s motion sets 

forth the facts which he contends are not reasonably subject to dispute and that entitle him to 

judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

2. Plaintiff has the right to oppose a motion for summary judgment. To oppose the 

motion, Plaintiff must show proof of his claims. Plaintiff may agree with the facts set forth in 

Defendant’s motion but argue that Defendant is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

 

1

 The Court notes that the exhaustion issue appears to be fully briefed, but, in the interests of Rule 56(d), the Court will 

consider requests for further discovery. 

2

 Woods v. Carey, Nos. 09-15548, 09-16113, 2012 WL 2626912 (9th Cir. Jul. 6, 2012); Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 

(9th Cir. 1998); Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1988). The requirements have been tailored to fit the 

circumstances of this action. 

Case 1:12-cv-02045-AWI-DLB Document 26 Filed 04/16/14 Page 2 of 4
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

In the alternative, if Plaintiff does not agree with the facts set forth in Defendant’s motion, he 

may show that Defendant’s facts are disputed in one or more of the following ways: (1) Plaintiff 

may rely upon statements made under the penalty of perjury in the complaint or the opposition if (a) 

the complaint or opposition shows that Plaintiff has personal knowledge of the matters stated and (b) 

Plaintiff calls to the Court’s attention those parts of the complaint or opposition upon which Plaintiff 

relies; (2) Plaintiff may serve and file declarations setting forth the facts which Plaintiff believes 

prove his claims; (3) Plaintiff may rely upon written records but Plaintiff must prove that the records 

are what he claims they are; or (4) Plaintiff may rely upon all or any part of the transcript of one or 

more depositions, answers to interrogatories, or admissions obtained in this proceeding. Should 

Plaintiff fail to contradict Defendant’s motion with declarations or other evidence, Defendant’s

evidence will be taken as truth, and final judgment may be entered without a full trial. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 56(e).

3. If discovery has not yet been opened or if discovery is still open and Plaintiff is not 

yet able to present facts to justify the opposition to the motion, the Court will consider a request to 

postpone consideration of Defendant’s motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). Any request to postpone 

consideration of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment must include the following: (1) a 

declaration setting forth the specific facts Plaintiff hopes to elicit from further discovery, (2) a 

showing that the facts exist, and (3) a showing that the facts are essential to opposing the motion for 

summary judgment. Blough v. Holland Realty, Inc., 574 F.3d 1084, 1091 n.5 (9th Cir. 2009); Tatum 

v. City and County of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100-01 (9th Cir. 2006); State of California v. 

Campbell, 138 F.3d 772, 779 (9th Cir. 1998). The request to postpone the motion for summary 

judgment must identify what information is sought and how it would preclude summary judgment. 

Blough, 574 F.3d at 1091 n.5; Tatum, 441 F.3d at 1100-01; Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 853 

(9th Cir. 1998); Local Rule 260(b). 

Case 1:12-cv-02045-AWI-DLB Document 26 Filed 04/16/14 Page 3 of 4
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

4

4. Unsigned declarations will be stricken, and declarations not signed under penalty of 

perjury have no evidentiary value.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 16, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-02045-AWI-DLB Document 26 Filed 04/16/14 Page 4 of 4