Reamel v. Harrington et al

Filing 37

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE as to Why Judgment Should Not Be Entered in Favor of Defendants for Failure to Respond to Dispositive Motion, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 7/27/17: 14-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

REAMEL CURTIS,

7
8
9
10

Plaintiff,
vs.
KELLI HARRINGTON, et al.,
Defendants.

1:15-cv-00553-LJO-EPG-PC
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO
WHY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE
ENTERED IN FAVOR OF
DEFENDANTS FOR FAILURE TO
RESPOND TO DISPOSITIVE MOTION
FOURTEEN DAY DEADLINE

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

Curtis Reamel (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. On April 10, 2015, Plaintiff filed the
Complaint commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.) This case is proceeding on Plaintiff’s Eighth
Amendment claim for failure to protect against defendants Gonzalez and Burgarin
(“Defendants”). (ECF Nos. 15, 20.)
On June 14, 2017, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment contending that
judgment should be entered in their favor because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (“No
action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any
other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until
such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted”). Defendant Burgarin moved for
summary judgment on the additional ground that he was not involved in the underlying events
giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim.
Defendants’ motion contained a warning to Plaintiff concerning the consequences of
failing to oppose a motion for summary judgment, including the requirements of Local Rule
260. (ECF No. 35-1). Under Local Rule 230(l), Plaintiff had 21 days to respond to the motion
for summary judgment. No response has been filed as of the date of this order.

1

1

Under Local Rule 260(b), a party opposing a motion for summary judgment is required

2

to “reproduce the itemized facts in the [movant’s] Statement of Undisputed Facts and admit

3

those facts that are undisputed and deny those that are disputed, including with each denial a

4

citation to the particular portions of any pleading, affidavit, deposition, interrogatory answer,

5

admission, or other document relied upon in support of that denial.” Local Rule 230(l) further

6

provides that a “[f]ailure of the responding party to file an opposition or to file a statement of

7

no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion and may

8

result in the imposition of sanctions.”

9

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause as to why judgment should not be

10

entered in favor of Defendants for Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the pending motion for

11

summary judgment.
Plaintiff’s show cause response shall be filed no later than 14 days after the date of this

12
13

order.

14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 27, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2