(PC) Garris v. Velasquez

Docket 1:25-cv-00604

Filed
2025-05-12
Terminated
Not recorded
Case type
cv

Outcome

No sourced outcome is recorded. A termination date alone does not establish who prevailed.

Parties and representation

      Party and firm records are not available for this case.

      Panel

        No sourced panel votes are recorded.

        Opinions and documents

        1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID GARRIS, Case No. 1:25-cv-00604-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER STRIKING PREMATURE FILING 13 v. (Doc. 36) 14 M. VELASQUEZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On June 29, 2026, Plaintiff filed documents as “proof” that he completed the prison 19 grievance (602) process. (Doc. 36). From what the Court can tell, Plaintiff is trying to file an 20 early, or pre-emptive, opposition to a future summary judgment motion about exhaustion that 21 Defendants might file. 22 Exhaustion is an affirmative defense, which means Defendants, not Plaintiff, must raise it 23 and prove it. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 212-18 (2007). Under the Case Management and 24 Scheduling Order, Defendants’ deadline to file a motion for summary judgment based on 25 exhaustion, if they choose to do so, is July 9, 2026. (See Doc. 35 at 3:16). 26 Because of this schedule, Plaintiff’s filing of “proof” of exhaustion is premature and will 27 be stricken. If Defendants later file a summary judgment motion based on exhaustion, Plaintiff 28 1 | will then have a chance to respond and submit any evidence showing he exhausted his remedies. 2 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 3 The Clerk of Court shall STRIKE Plaintiff's premature exhaustion documents 4 | (Doc. 36). 5 ° | Dated: _ July 2. 2026 Mihaw. □□ fareh Hack 7 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

        Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.