Filed: Feb. 20, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 20, 2020
Summary: ORDER EDMUND F. BRENNAN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983. He requests an extension of time to file his reply in support of his motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 35. That request is granted. However, the court notes that on January 22, 2020 defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 31, and informed plaintiff of the requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment. 1 Plaintiff ha
Summary: ORDER EDMUND F. BRENNAN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983. He requests an extension of time to file his reply in support of his motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 35. That request is granted. However, the court notes that on January 22, 2020 defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 31, and informed plaintiff of the requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment. 1 Plaintiff has..
More
ORDER
EDMUND F. BRENNAN, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He requests an extension of time to file his reply in support of his motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 35. That request is granted.
However, the court notes that on January 22, 2020 defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 31, and informed plaintiff of the requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment.1 Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or a statement of no opposition to that motion.
In cases in which one party is incarcerated and proceeding without counsel, motions ordinarily are submitted on the record without oral argument. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(l). "Opposition, if any, to the granting of the motion shall be served and filed by the responding party not more than twenty-one (21), days after the date of service of the motion. " Id. A responding party's failure "to file an opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion and may result in the imposition of sanctions." Id. Furthermore, a party's failure to comply with any order or with the Local Rules "may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court." E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. The court may recommend that an action be dismissed with or without prejudice, as appropriate, if a party disobeys an order or the Local Rules. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court did not abuse discretion in dismissing pro se plaintiff's complaint for failing to obey an order to re-file an amended complaint to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for pro se plaintiff's failure to comply with local rule regarding notice of change of address affirmed).
On February 6, 2019, the court advised plaintiff of the requirements for filing an opposition to the motion, that failure to oppose such a motion may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion and that failure to comply with the Local Rules may result in dismissal.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's request (ECF No. 35) is granted and plaintiff has 30 days from the date this order is served to file his reply; and
2. Within 30 days from the date this order is served, plaintiff shall also file an opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment. Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice.
So ordered.
