Marques Butler v. Brazelton et al

Filing 23

ORDER Requiring Plaintiff to File Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to Defendants' 17 Motion for Summary Judgment Within Thirty Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 1/10/17. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
11

MARQUES BUTLER,

12
v.

13
14

Case No. 1:14-cv-01220-DAD-EPG (PC)
Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE
OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF NONOPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

R. BOOZER, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17

Marquez Butler (APlaintiff@) was at all relevant times a state prisoner at Pleasant Valley

18

State Prison. He is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to

19

42 U.S.C. ' 1983. On December 1, 2016, all eleven defendants filed a motion for summary

20

judgment. (ECF No. 17). Plaintiff was required to file an opposition or a statement of non-

21

opposition to the motion within twenty-one days (Local Rule 230(l)), but did not do so.

22

Local Rule 230(l) provides that the failure to oppose a motion “may be deemed a waiver

23

of any opposition to the granting of the motion and may result in the imposition of sanctions.”

24

While a motion for summary judgment cannot be granted by default, Heinemann v. Satterberg,

25

731 F.3d 914, 916 (9th Cir. 2013), the Court does have other options when a party fails to

26

respond. For example, if Plaintiff fails to respond, the Court may treat the facts asserted by

27

defendants as undisputed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2).

28

\\\
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty days of the date of service of

2

this order, Plaintiff shall file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion for

3

summary judgment filed by defendants.

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 10, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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