(PC) Hampton v. California Correctional Healthcare Services

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA THOMAS LEROY HAMPTON, Case No. 1:22-cv-00518-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. PLEADING KIWANA HILL, ULYSSES BANIGA, Doc. No. 27 NANCY HIOLMES, TIFFANY GABBARD, and S. ONYANGO, 16 Defendants.

18 On March 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled “Brief in Dispute of Affirmative Defen[s]e of Non-Exhaustion” with exhibits. (Doc. No. 27). In his pleading, Plaintiff asserts he has properly and fully exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to his claims referencing the exhibits attached to his pleading. (See generally Id). Plaintiff asks the Court to “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 motion and is premature. The defense of exhaustion is an affirmative defense that must be raised and proven by a defendant. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 212-18 (2007). Defendants have not yet filed an exhaustion-based summary judgment motion. (See Docket). Thus, Plaintiff’s pleading is premature. If Defendants file an exhaustion-based motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff may 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 | Defen[s]e of Non-Exhaustion” as premature. > | Dated: _ March 7, 2025 Mihaw. □□□ foareA Zacks 6 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE