Filed: Nov. 12, 2014
Latest Update: Nov. 12, 2014
Summary: ORDER DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff is a state prisoner 1 proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction over this action for all purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c), and Local Rule 305(a). ( See ECF No. 6.) On October 2, 2014, this case was reopened to accord plaintiff additional time to respond to the motion for summary judgment filed by defendants on May 29,
Summary: ORDER DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff is a state prisoner 1 proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction over this action for all purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c), and Local Rule 305(a). ( See ECF No. 6.) On October 2, 2014, this case was reopened to accord plaintiff additional time to respond to the motion for summary judgment filed by defendants on May 29, 2..
More
ORDER
DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner1 proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction over this action for all purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and Local Rule 305(a). (See ECF No. 6.)
On October 2, 2014, this case was reopened to accord plaintiff additional time to respond to the motion for summary judgment filed by defendants on May 29, 2014. (See ECF No. 44.) Plaintiff was originally accorded thirty days to file and serve his opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion. That deadline expired on November 1, 2014, a Saturday, and therefore was automatically extended until Monday, November 3, 2014. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C). The effective filing deadline has now passed and plaintiff has not filed an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the pending motion for summary judgment, or otherwise communicated with the court.
On April 1, 2013, plaintiff was advised of the requirements for filing an opposition to a motion for summary judgment, and informed that failure to oppose such motion may be deemed a waiver of opposition thereto. (See ECF No. 18.) See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988). That order also advised plaintiff that failure to comply with the Local Rules may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.2
Local Rule 230(l) provides that failure to timely respond to a motion may be deemed a waiver of opposition. See Local Rule 230(l). In addition, Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules or any order of this court "may be grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court." Finally, Rule 41(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, authorizes the involuntary dismissal of an action due to a plaintiff's failure to prosecute, or to comply with the Federal Rules or a court order.
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within fourteen (14) days after the filing date of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition, if any, to the pending motion for summary judgment. Failure to timely file an opposition will be deemed as a statement of non-opposition and shall result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
