(PC) Hampton v. California Correctional Healthcare Services

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 7, 2025
• Docket: 1:22-cv-00518
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS LEROY HAMPTON, Case No. 1:22-cv-00518-HBK (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. PLEADING 14 KIWANA HILL, ULYSSES BANIGA, Doc. No. 27 NANCY HIOLMES, TIFFANY 15 GABBARD, and S. ONYANGO,

16 Defendants. 17 18 On March 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled “Brief in Dispute of Affirmative 19 Defen[s]e of Non-Exhaustion” with exhibits. (Doc. No. 27). In his pleading, Plaintiff asserts he 20 has properly and fully exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to his claims 21 referencing the exhibits attached to his pleading. (See generally Id). Plaintiff asks the Court to 22 “reject defendants defen[s]e of non-exhaustion.” (Id. at 3). 23 Plaintiff’s pleading is a pre-emptive opposition to an exhaustion-based summary judgment 24 motion and is premature. The defense of exhaustion is an affirmative defense that must be raised 25 and proven by a defendant. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 212-18 (2007). Defendants have not yet 26 filed an exhaustion-based summary judgment motion. (See Docket). Thus, Plaintiff’s pleading is 27 premature. If Defendants file an exhaustion-based motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff may 28 refile his pleading or file an appropriate response at that time. 1 ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED: 2 The Court DISREGARDS (Doc. No. 27) Plaintiffs “Brief in Dispute of Affirmative 3 | Defen[s]e of Non-Exhaustion” as premature. 4 > | Dated: _ March 7, 2025 Mihaw. □□□ foareA Zacks 6 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28