Opinion
ORDER
ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On remand, this case proceeds on plaintiff's claims against defendants Bal, Sahota, Nangalama, Masuret, and Woods. ECF No. 50.
Plaintiff's claims against defendants were previously dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. ECF Nos. 37, 42. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit found that the motion to dismiss was granted in error because plaintiff claimed that he was satisfied with the administrative relief he received at the first and second levels of review, but held that on remand defendants could contest whether plaintiff was actually satisfied using the procedures set forth in Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1169-71 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). ECF No. 50 at 2-3.
Defendants were ordered to advise the court whether they intended to file a motion for summary judgment based on the claim that plaintiff was not in fact satisfied by the relief he received and that if they intended to file such a motion, they were to also advise whether limited discovery was necessary. ECF No. 60. Defendants were to provide a proposed schedule for any anticipated discovery or summary-judgment motion. Id . Instead of providing the information requested by the court, defendants have proceeded to file a motion for summary judgment arguing that plaintiff was not satisfied and therefore did not exhaust his administrative remedies. ECF No. 62.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff shall file a response to defendants' motion for summary judgment within twenty-one days of the filing of this order.
2. Discovery is stayed and deadlines for conducting discovery and filing merits-based dispositive motions will be set, if necessary, upon resolution of defendants' currently pending summary-judgment motion.