United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lafayette Division
PATRICK J. HANNA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
pending before the court is the defendants' motion for
leave to exceed the page limit when presenting their re-urged
motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Rec. Doc.
24). Filed along with the motion for leave was the
defendants' re-urged motion to dismiss (Rec. Doc. 24-2),
a memorandum supporting that motion (Rec. Doc. 24-3), and a
group of exhibits (Rec. Docs. 24-4 through 24-9).
when considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6),
“a district court must limit itself to the contents of
the pleadings, including attachments
thereto.” However, the court may consider the
attachments to a motion to dismiss as part of the pleading
“if they are referred to in the plaintiff's
complaint and are central to her claim.” This Court's
initial review of the defendants' exhibits showed that
the exhibits were not referred to in the plaintiff's
complaint and are not central to the plaintiff's claims.
Instead, they are related to the defendants' basis for
seeking to have those claims dismissed. Accordingly, the
exhibits constitute evidence beyond the scope of the
the mere submission of extraneous materials does not by
itself convert a Rule 12(b)(6) motion into a motion for
summary judgment, a district court has broad discretion in
deciding whether to treat a motion to dismiss as a motion for
summary judgment. Therefore, this Court has discretion,
based on a determination of whether the submitted material is
likely to facilitate the disposition of the action, to accept
material beyond the pleadings that is offered in conjunction
with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Indeed, if
“matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not
excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as
one for summary judgment under Rule 56.”
case, the additional evidence submitted along with the
parties' briefs is important to the resolution of the
issue presented in the motion to dismiss, i.e., whether the
plaintiff's lawsuit is barred by the Heck
doctrine. Therefore, this Court will convert the
defendants' motion to dismiss to a motion for summary
judgment. When such a conversion occurs, “[a]ll parties
must be given a reasonable opportunity to present all the
material that is pertinent to the
motion.” Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the motion
for leave to exceed the page limit (Rec. Doc. 24) is GRANTED.
FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants' motion to dismiss
(Rec. Doc. 24-2) is converted to a motion for summary
FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall supplement the record
in support of or in opposition to the pending motion, as
converted, by submitting any relevant and appropriate
summary-judgment-style evidence not later than January 7,
FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants' motion for summary
judgment (Rec. Doc. 24-2) is SET for oral argument on
February 13, 2020 before the undersigned Magistrate Judge.
 Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean
Witter, 224 F.3d 496, 498 (5th Cir. 2000).
See, also, Brand Coupon Network, L.L.C. v. Catalina
Marketing Corp., 748 F.3d 631, 635 (5th Cir.
2014); In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d
191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007).
 Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean
Witter, 224 F.3d at 499. See, also, Scanlan v. Texas
A & M Univ., 343 F.3d 533, 536 (5th Cir.
Ware v. Associated Milk Producers,
Inc., 614 F.2d 413, 415 (5th Cir.