ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S LETTER

(ECF NO. 33)

21-DAY DEADLINE

ERICA P. GROSJEAN, Magistrate Judge.

Joseph Perez ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 15, 2016, defendant Padilla filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 30). Plaintiff also filed a notice of the motion to dismiss, which included a hearing date. (Id.). Because having a hearing on a motion to dismiss is not the Court's regular practice (see Local Rule 230(1)), the Court vacated the hearing and ordered Plaintiff to file a response (ECF No. 32). On December 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed a letter. (ECF No. 33).

It is difficult to determine what Plaintiff is asking for. Near the end of the letter Plaintiff states that he wants to know when he can be present on this matter. It appears that the setting and vacating of the hearing may have confused Plaintiff. As mentioned above, there will be no hearing on defendant Padilla's motion to dismiss unless the Court determines one is required after review of all the briefing. Generally, the Court does not conduct oral arguments for motions to dismiss. Thus, Plaintiff must file a written response to the motion to dismiss.

Because of this apparent confusion, the Court will grant Plaintiff twenty-one days from the date of service of this order to file a written response to the motion to dismiss. Defendant Padilla will have seven days from the filing of the response to file a reply.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff has twenty-one days from the date of service of this order to file a written response to defendant Padilla's motion to dismiss. Defendant has seven days from the filing of the response to file a reply.

Failure to respond to the motion to dismiss may result in the motion to dismiss being granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.