Heriberto Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 776 (2018)

Citation: Heriberto Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 776 (2018)
Parent Document: Heriberto Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 776 (2018)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2018-05-30
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4502306/heriberto-rodriguez-v-county-of... ↗

Full Text

814 chars

Pursuant to our then-existing precedent, the district court
considered the appellants’ PLRA exhaustion argument on an
unenumerated motion to dismiss, but only after requiring
appellees to submit evidence “as to why they did not comply
with the [applicable] administrative remedy scheme.” In our
subsequent en banc decision in Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d
1162, 1170 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc), we clarified that a fact-
based failure-to-exhaust defense should be asserted in a
summary judgment motion. But where, as here, “it is clear
that the district court considered evidence submitted by the
parties in reaching its decision, we construe the district
court’s order as a grant of summary judgment on the issue of
exhaustion.” Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th
Cir. 2015). We agree with the district court.

Other Sections in This Document (185)

Full Text