Good et al v. California Dept. of Corrections et al

Filing 47

ORDER INSTRUCTING Plaintiff to File an Opposition or Statement of No Opposition to Defendants' 46 Motion to Dismiss signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 8/22/2011. Opposition or No Opposition Due by 9/8/2011. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOHN GOOD,

12
13
14

Case No.: 1:09-cv-01791 JLT (PC)
Plaintiff,

ORDER INSTRUCTING PLAINTIFF TO
FILE AN OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT
OF NO OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS

vs.
CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,

(Doc. 46)

15
Defendants.
16
17

/

18

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action

19

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 15, 2011, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for Plaintiff’s

20

failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (Doc. 46.) Although Plaintiff was previously advised of the

21

requirements for filing an opposition to such motions, (see Doc. 38-1 at 2-3), Plaintiff has not filed an

22

opposition in accordance with the Local Rules.

23

Plaintiff is therefore reminded that Local Rule 230(l) provides, in part, that: “Failure of the

24

responding party to file written opposition or to file a statement of no opposition [within twenty-one days

25

after the date of service of a motion] may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the

26

motion . . . .” Local Rule 110 also provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules “may be grounds

27

for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the

28

Court” including, but not limited to, dismissal of the action.
1

1

Accordingly, good cause appearing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that, within fourteen (14) days

2

of the date of this order, Plaintiff shall an opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss filed July 15,

3

2011. Plaintiff is firmly cautioned that failure to file an opposition will be deemed as a statement of no

4

opposition and may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule

5

of Civil Procedure 41(b).

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

Dated: August 22, 2011
9j7khi

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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