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 "Griffin claimed that he was `satisfied' with the administrative relief partially granted to him at the first and second levels of administrative review. Once prison officials at California State Prison Sacramento purported to grant relief with which Griffin was satisfied, Griffin's exhaustion obligation ended" and defendants' motion to dismiss was therefore granted in error. ECF No. 50 at 2-3. However, the Ninth Circuit also 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).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within fourteen days of the filing of this order, defendants shall file a notice with the court advising whether they intend to file a motion for summary judgment based on the claim that plaintiff was not in fact satisfied by the relief he received via the administrative remedies process and therefore failed to exhaust. If defendants intend to file such a motion, they must also advise whether discovery limited to the issue of plaintiff's satisfaction is necessary, and provide a proposed schedule for any such discovery and summary judgment motion.