Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01848/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01848-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. Lopez
Defendant
Darnell Pillors
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

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

DARNELL PILLORS,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

J. LOPEZ,

 Defendant.

1:14-cv-01848-DAD-EPG-PC

 

NOTICE AND WARNING OF 

REQUIREMENTS FOR OPPOSING 

DEFENDANT‟S MOTION TO DISMISS

(ECF No. 18.)

Darnell Pillors (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. On June 7, 2016, Defendant filed a 

motion to dismiss this case for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (ECF No. 18.) 

Plaintiff has not been provided with a Notice and Warning, pursuant to the Ninth 

Circuit’s requirement in Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2012), informing him of his 

rights and responsibilities in opposing Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Therefore, the Court 

shall, by this order, provide Plaintiff with the requisite Notice and Warning. 

NOTICE AND WARNING OF REQUIREMENTS FOR OPPOSING 

DEFENDANT‟S MOTION TO DISMISS

Pursuant to Woods v. Carey, the Court now hereby notifies Plaintiff of the following 

rights and requirements for opposing Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Woods v. Carey, 684 

F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2012) (Fair notice of the requirements needed to defeat a defendant's motion 

Case 1:14-cv-01848-DAD-EPG Document 19 Filed 06/15/16 Page 1 of 3
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

to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies must be provided to a pro se prisoner 

litigant in a civil rights case.) 

NOTICE AND WARNING:

Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies as to one or more claims in the complaint. The 

failure to exhaust administrative remedies is subject to a motion for 

summary judgment or, if a failure to exhaust is clear on the face of the 

complaint, a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Albino v. Baca, 747 

F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 2014). “The motion to dismiss for failure to 

exhaust administrative remedies is similar to a motion for a summary 

judgment in that the district court will consider materials beyond the 

pleadings; the plaintiff has a „right to file counter-affidavits or other 

responsive evidentiary materials.‟” Stratton v. Buck, 697 F.3d 1004, 1008 

(9th Cir. 2012), quoting Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 960 (9th Cir. 1998). 

If the Court determines that all of the claims are unexhausted, the 

case will be dismissed, which means Plaintiff=s case is over. If some of the 

claims are exhausted and some are unexhausted, the unexhausted claims 

will be dismissed and the case will proceed forward only on the exhausted 

claims. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 219-224, 127 S. Ct. 910, 923-26 (2007). 

A dismissal for failure to exhaust is without prejudice. Id.

Unless otherwise ordered, all motions to dismiss shall be briefed 

pursuant to Local Rule 230(l). Plaintiff is required to file an opposition or a 

statement of non-opposition to Defendant‟s motion to dismiss. Local Rule 

230(l). If Plaintiff fails to file an opposition or a statement of nonopposition to the motion, this action may be dismissed, with prejudice, for 

failure to prosecute. The opposition or statement of non-opposition must be 

filed not more than 21 days after the date of service of the motion. Id. 

Case 1:14-cv-01848-DAD-EPG Document 19 Filed 06/15/16 Page 2 of 3
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

If responding to Defendant‟s motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust 

the administrative remedies, Plaintiff may not simply rely on allegations in 

the complaint. Instead, Plaintiff must oppose the motion by setting forth 

specific facts in declaration(s) and/or by submitting other evidence 

regarding the exhaustion of administrative remedies. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

43(c). Unsigned declarations will be stricken, and declarations not signed 

under penalty of perjury have no evidentiary value. If Plaintiff does not 

submit his own evidence in opposition, the Court may conclude that 

Plaintiff has not exhausted the administrative remedies and the case will be 

dismissed in whole or in part.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 15, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01848-DAD-EPG Document 19 Filed 06/15/16 Page 3 of 3