McElroy v. Cox et al

Filing 92

ORDER REQUIRING Plaintiff to File a Response to 59 Defendants' Motion for Sanctions Within Thirty (30) Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 9/13/2011. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LATWAHN McELROY,

12

1:08-cv-01221-LJO-GSA-PC

Plaintiff,

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO
FILE A RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
(Doc. 57.)

vs.
13
ROY COX, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE
/

16

Latwahn McElroy ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action

17

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on August 19, 2008.

18

(Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds with the original Complaint against defendants Correctional Officer

19

(“C/O”) Roy Cox, C/O B. Cope, C/O R. Robles, C/O Paul Rocha, C/O Thomas Acosta, C/O Sherri

20

Stinnett, and LVN M. Hankins, for excessive force and deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth

21

Amendment.

22

On March 18, 2011, Defendants filed a motion for sanctions, based on Plaintiff’s failure to

23

comply with the Court’s discovery order of February 16, 2011. (Doc. 59.) Defendants request the

24

dismissal of this action, or at the very least an order prohibiting Plaintiff from introducing into evidence

25

the testimony of his three alleged witnesses. Id.

26

Plaintiff was required to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion within

27

twenty-one days, but has not done so. Local Rule 230(l). Failure to follow a district court's local rules

28

is a proper grounds for dismissal. U.S. v.Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979). A court may also
1

1

dismiss an action for failure to comply with a court order. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642

2

(9th Cir. 2002).

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1.

Within thirty days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an opposition or

5

statement of non-opposition to the motion for sanctions filed by Defendants on March

6

18, 2011; and

7

2.

8

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order shall result a recommendation that this action
be dismissed.

9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
6i0kij

September 13, 2011

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2