Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01948/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01948-12/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
R. Borbon
Defendant
Finegan
Defendant
C. Lawless
Defendant
James Pablo Patterson
Plaintiff
S. Corona
Defendant
Warden and Housing Supervisor
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES PABLO PATTERSON, 

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN AND HOUSING 

SUPERVISOR, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01948-LJO-JLT (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

DEFENDANTS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO 

FILE A RESPONSIVE PLEADING

(Docs. 32, 39)

TEN (10) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff, Louis V. Rodriguez, ("Plaintiff") a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

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

action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint against Defendants R. Borbon, 

Finegan, C. Lawless, and S. Corona ("Defendants") for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's safety 

in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

On March 7, 2014, Defendants filed an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss on the 

ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. 42 

U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). Subsequently, 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 affirmative defense of 

exhaustion under § 1997e(a). Albino v. Baca, No. 10-55702, 2014 WL 1317141, at *1 (9th Cir. 

Apr. 3, 2014) (en banc). Following the decision in Albino, Defendants may raise exhaustion 

Case 1:12-cv-01948-DAD-JLT Document 45 Filed 05/20/14 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

deficiencies as an affirmative defense under §1997e(a) in either (1) a motion to dismiss pursuant 

to Rule 12(b)(6)1or (2) a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 if it has been pled and 

preserved. Albino, 2014 WL 1317141, at *4. An unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion is no longer 

the proper procedural device for raising the affirmative defense of exhaustion. Id. 

Thus, on April 9, 2014, an order issued striking Defendants' unenumerated Rule 12(b) 

motion from the record and providing Defendants thirty days to file a responsive pleading. 

(Doc.39.) Instead of filing a responsive pleading, Defendants filed a motion for summary 

judgment. (Doc. 43.) However, "a motion or a response to one is not deemed a 'responsive 

pleading' for the purposes of the time limits set out in the Rules." Educ. Servs., Inc. v. Maryland 

State Bd for Higher Educ., 710 F.2d 170, 176-77 (4th Cir. 1983) (citations omitted).

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that within 10 days from the date of service of 

this order, Defendants shall show cause in writing why they are not obligated to file a responsive 

pleading, or within this same time period, they shall file their responsive pleading (i.e., an 

answer) to the Second Amended Complaint in this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 19, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1 Motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) are only appropriate "[i]n the rare event a failure to 

exhaust is clear on the face of the complaint." Albino, 2014 WL 1317141, at *1.

Case 1:12-cv-01948-DAD-JLT Document 45 Filed 05/20/14 Page 2 of 2