Wakefield v. Indermill, et al.

Filing 53

ORDER Requiring Plaintiff to File Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 7/21/11. 30-Day Deadline. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

DARRYL WAKEFIELD,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00274-LJO-SMS PC
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

v.
RICHARD INDERMILL,

(ECF Nos. 50, 51)
13

Defendant.
/ THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

14
15

Plaintiff Darryl Wakefield (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

16

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1 (Religious

17

Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”)). This action is proceeding on

18

Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed August 11, 2009, against Defendant Wakefield for violations

19

of the First Amendment and RLUIPA.

20
21

On June 22, 2011, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff failed to file
an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion. Local Rule 230(l).

22

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

23

1.

Plaintiff shall file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to Defendant’s

24

motion for summary judgment within thirty (30) days from the date of service of

25

this order; and

26

///

27

///

28

///
1

1

2.

2

result in dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute.

3
4

The failure to respond to Defendant’s motion in compliance with this order will

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
cm411

July 21, 2011

/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2