Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01604/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01604-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Prada
Defendant
King Solomon
Plaintiff
Tapia
Defendant

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

Order

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KING SOLOMON,

Plaintiff,

v.

TAPIA,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:22-cv-01604-KES-HBK (PC)

ORDER STRIKING IMPROPER PLEADING

(Doc. No. 35)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO REVISE 

DOCKET TO REFLECT ONLY NAMED 

DEFENDANT

(Doc. No. 18)

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s pleading titled “Response to Exhaustion Motion,”

filed June 17, 2024. (Doc. No. 35, “Response”). In his pleading, Plaintiff describes in detail his 

efforts to exhaust his administrative remedies through the CDCR grievance process. (See id. at 1-

5). Plaintiff also attaches 13 pages of exhibits to his pleading. (Id. at 6-18). Plaintiff’s Response

is an improper pleading, and the Court will order the Clerk of Court to strike it from the record.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure designate proper pleadings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a)(1)-

(7). Further, Local Rule 230(l) sets forth the procedure for the filing of motions in prisoner civil 

rights cases and provides that a party responding to a motion may file an opposition within 21 

days after the date of service of the motion. (E.D. Cal. 2023). A prisoner need not plead or prove 

exhaustion. Instead, it is an affirmative defense that must be raised and proved by 

defendant. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007). Here, the docket reflects that there is no 

Case 1:22-cv-01604-KES-HBK Document 36 Filed 06/18/24 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

pending motion before the Court, related to exhaustion of administrative remedies or otherwise. 

Thus, Plaintiff’s Response is not related to any motion currently pending before the Court and the 

Court will strike it as an improper pleading under Rule 7 and Local Rule 230(l)1. (See Doc. No. 

4 at 3 ¶ J) (noting that the Court will not serve as a repository for evidence or documents 

unrelated to a pending motion for summary judgment). Should Defendant move for summary 

judgment on the exhaustion issue, Plaintiff may file a response and any exhibits in support at that 

time. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. The Clerk of Court is directed to STRIKE Plaintiff’s Response to Exhaustion Motion

(Doc. No. 35) as an improper pleading from the docket.

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to revise the docket to reflect that Plaintiff proceeds in 

this case against Defendant Tapia only, pursuant to his First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 18) 

which no longer names Defendant Prada.

Dated: June 18, 2024 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-01604-KES-HBK Document 36 Filed 06/18/24 Page 2 of 2