Opinion
CASE NO. 1:10-cv-01129-SKO PC
01-03-2012
RICHARD JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. MIKE PALOMBO, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK'S OFFICE TO AMEND DOCKET ENTRY TO REFLECT THAT PLAINTIFF'S FILING OF DECEMBER 22, 2011, IS HIS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS, AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS FIFTEEN DAYS WITHIN WHICH TO FILE THEIR REPLY, IF ANY
(Doc. 35)
Plaintiff Richard Jackson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 23, 2010. Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss based on Plaintiff's failure to exhaust the available administrative remedies, filed on October 26, 2011. On November 30, 2011, Plaintiff was granted an extension of thirty days within which to file an opposition to the motion. On December 22, 2011, Plaintiff filed what he entitled a motion for summary judgment.
The Court has reviewed the filing and determined that it is not a motion for summary judgment filed in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Local Rule 260, despite its title. Further, as Plaintiff references the November 30, 2011, order and attaches inmate appeals documents as exhibits, the filing appears to be Plaintiff's opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust and it shall be treated as such.
Accordingly, the Clerk's Office is HEREBY DIRECTED to amend the docket to reflect that Plaintiff's December 22, 2011, filing is his opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss, and Defendants SHALL file their reply, if any, within fifteen (15) days from the date of service of this order. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE