Smith v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 61

ORDER signed by District Judge Susan R. Bolton on 10/17/2012 re 60 MOTION to DISMISS. (Filing Deadline: 11/5/2012 for Plaintiff to file a response). (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

FRESNO DIVISION

9
10

Michael Lenoir Smith,
Plaintiff,

11
12

vs.

13
Arnold Schwarzeneggar, et al.
14
15

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:07-cv-1547 SRB
ORDER

16
17

On October 17, 2012, Defendants Yates, Hedgpeth and Allison (Defendants) filed a

18 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint; Defendants' Request That the Court
19 Screen Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint. Because the Plaintiff is acting pro se in this
20 matter, the Court advises the Plaintiff of the following:
21 I.

RULE 7.2(i) CAUTIONARY NOTICE

22

LRCiv 7.2(i) states in relevant part: "[I]f the opposing party does not serve and file the

23 required answering memoranda . . . such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the
24 denial or granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily." See
25 D.Ariz. R. 1.10(i); see also Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 652 (9th Cir. 1994). Plaintiff
26 should take notice that failure to respond to the Defendants' Motion by the deadline set forth
27 in this Order will result in the Court deeming the Defendants' Motion as being unopposed and
28 consented to by the Plaintiff. See Brydges, 18 F.3d at 652 (affirming the district court's

1

summary granting of a motion for summary judgment under Local Rule 7.2(i) when

2

non-moving party was given express warning of consequences of failing to respond).

3

It is the Plaintiff's obligation to timely respond to all motions. The Defendants'

4

Motion will be summarily granted if Plaintiff fails to respond in accordance with the

5

provisions of this Order.

6

II.

RULE 41 CAUTIONARY NOTICE

7

The Plaintiff should also take notice that if he fails to timely comply with every

8

provision of this Order, or any other order of the Court entered in this matter, his Complaint

9

and this action may also be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

10

Procedure. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that the

11

district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the court), cert

12

denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992). Therefore, the Plaintiff is warned that failure to strictly

13

adhere to the provisions of this or any other Court Order will result in dismissal of the

14

Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Rule 41.

15

Accordingly,

16

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file with the Clerk of the Court and serve on

17

opposing counsel a responsive memorandum to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's

18

Third Amended Complaint no later than November 5, 2012.

19
20

DATED this 17th day of October, 2012.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-