Johnson v. Meyer

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: April 21, 2021
• Docket: 3:19-cv-02345
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JOSEPH JAMAUL JOHNSON, Case No. 19-cv-02345-SI

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DISCOVERY 9 v. MOTION AND EXTENDING DEADLINES 10 J. CERMENO, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 38 11 Defendants.

12 This is a pro se prisoner’s civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which plaintiff alleges 13 claims that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety and to his medical needs. On 14 January 22, 2021, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment solely on the ground that 15 plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies for his claims before filing this action. Docket 16 No. 36. (Defendants indicate that, if the motion for summary judgment does not fully resolve the 17 case, they will file another motion for summary judgment on the merits. Id. at 2 n.1.) The court’s 18 most recent scheduling order required plaintiff to file an opposition to the motion for summary 19 judgment no later than March 5, 2021. Docket No. 34. Plaintiff has not yet filed an opposition and 20 has not sought an extension of the deadline to do so. 21 On April 14, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery, seeking sanctions and 22 apparently an order compelling defendants to give different and better responses to his requests for 23 admissions. Docket No. 38. The attachment to the motion shows that plaintiff served a series of 24 requests for admissions that went to the merits of his claim -- rather than to his efforts to exhaust 25 administrative remedies – and that a defendant responded to each one with objections including this 26 objection: 27 [Defendants] have filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether or determined at the outset, before a defendant is required to address the merits of a 1 claim under the PLRA. See Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1170 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). The Albino court also indicated that discovery, if appropriate, can be limited 2 to the issue of exhaustion until that issue is resolved. Responding party therefore objects to this discovery as not being directed to the issue of whether or not Plaintiff 3 exhausted his administrative remedies before filing suit. Once the Court has determined the exhaustion issue, responding party will, if appropriate, respond to this 4 discovery at that time. 5 Docket No. 38 at 5-9. 6 The court agrees with defendants’ position that the administrative exhaustion question can 7 and should be decided as a threshold matter. The Albino case plainly contemplates the approach 8 defendants urge, as that case states that “[e]xhaustion should be decided, if feasible, before reaching 9 the merits of a prisoner's claim.” Albino, 747 F.3d at 1170. Albino also permits, but does not 10 || require, a party to file a motion for summary judgment “directed solely to the issue of exhaustion.” 11 Id. Once the exhaustion question is resolved, the case may proceed to the merits if dismissal is not a 12 appropriate for nonexhaustion. See id. at 1170-71.

13 The court will decide the exhaustion question first, before allowing the case to go forward

v 14 || to consideration of the merits of plaintiff's claims, if necessary. The discovery requests that are the

15 || basis of plaintiff's motion to compel are not relevant to the exhaustion question. Plaintiff's motion a 16 to compel and for sanctions therefore is DENIED. Docket No. 38. If this case survives defendants’

= 17 motion for summary judgment, plaintiff then can pursue discovery about the merits of his claims.

18 Plaintiff missed the deadline to file his opposition to the motion for summary judgment. The 19 court will give him one last chance to file that opposition and now sets the following new briefing 20 || schedule. Plaintiff must file and serve his opposition to the motion for summary judgment no later 21 than May 20, 2021. This deadline will not be further extended because, by the time it arrives, 22 || plaintiff will have had almost four months to prepare his opposition. Defendants must file and serve 23 their reply brief, if any, no later than June 4, 2021. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 |] Dated: April 21, 2021 Site WU tee 26 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 28