Filed: May 05, 2016
Latest Update: May 05, 2016
Summary: ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc.34) TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE SHEILA K. OBERTO , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Brent Adler, a former state prisoner who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 on November 18, 2013. This action for damages is proceeding against Defendants Gonzalez, Holland, Steadman, Bryant, Zanchi, Lundy, and Schuyler
Summary: ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc.34) TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE SHEILA K. OBERTO , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Brent Adler, a former state prisoner who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 on November 18, 2013. This action for damages is proceeding against Defendants Gonzalez, Holland, Steadman, Bryant, Zanchi, Lundy, and Schuyler ..
More
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(Doc.34)
TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE
SHEILA K. OBERTO, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Brent Adler, a former state prisoner who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 18, 2013. This action for damages is proceeding against Defendants Gonzalez, Holland, Steadman, Bryant, Zanchi, Lundy, and Schuyler for violating Plaintiff's right to adequate outdoor exercise under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution while he was incarcerated at California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi between 2008 and 2011.
On March 30, 2016, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment which included notice to Plaintiff of the requirements to oppose the motion. (Doc. 34.) Further, on March 31, 2016, the Second Informational Order issued which also informed Plaintiff of the requirements to adequately oppose a motion for summary judgment in detail and that his opposition or statement of non-opposition was due within 21 days of service of Defendants' motion. (Doc. 36.) Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion despite lapse of more than the requisite time. Local Rule 230(l).
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff shall file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order; and
2. Plaintiff is warned that the failure to comply with this order will result recommendation that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute and for failure to obey a court order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
