Joy v. Laszuk, 1:16-cv-01652-LJO-EPG. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180322b15
Visitors: 8
Filed: Mar. 21, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 21, 2018
Summary: ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF Nos. 38, 39) THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE ERICA P. GROSJEAN , Magistrate Judge . Eric Darnell Joy ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On December 18, 2017, B. Laszuk, M. Valdez, and M. Garcia ("Defendants") filed motions for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administr
Summary: ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF Nos. 38, 39) THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE ERICA P. GROSJEAN , Magistrate Judge . Eric Darnell Joy ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On December 18, 2017, B. Laszuk, M. Valdez, and M. Garcia ("Defendants") filed motions for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administra..
More
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(ECF Nos. 38, 39)
THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE
ERICA P. GROSJEAN, Magistrate Judge.
Eric Darnell Joy ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 18, 2017, B. Laszuk, M. Valdez, and M. Garcia ("Defendants") filed motions for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (ECF
Pursuant to Local Rule 230(1), Plaintiff was required to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motions within twenty-one days, but did not do so. Local Rule 230(1) provides that the failure to oppose a motion "may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion and may result in the imposition of sanctions."
However, the Court will give Plaintiff an additional thirty days to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motions for summary judgment. Thereafter, the Court will consider any facts asserted by Defendants as undisputed for purposes of the motions. See Heinemann v. Satterberg, 731 F.3d 914, 917 (9th Cir. 2013) (discussing the consequences of a party's failure to respond to a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the pending motions for summary judgment; and
2. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the Court will treat any facts asserted by Defendants as undisputed. Additionally, this case may be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
