Rowland v. Beard et al

Filing 22

ORDER Requiring Plaintiff to File Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to 18 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 5/2/17. Thirty-Day Deadline. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CASEY LEE ROWLAND,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01475-BAM (PC)
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE
OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF NONOPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al.,
(ECF No. 18)

15

Defendants.
THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

16

Plaintiff Casey Lee Rowland (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

17
18

forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on

19

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint for: (1) an Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants

20

Vasquez, Leon, Llamas, and Pavich in their individual capacities arising out of allegations of

21

sewage overflowing into Plaintiff’s cell and lack of cleaning supplies; (2) an Eighth Amendment

22

claim against Defendant Leon in her individual capacity arising out of allegations that Defendant

23

Leon labelled Plaintiff a snitch; (3) an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to

24

serious medical needs against Defendant Melo in his individual capacity; and (4) a First

25

Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Leon in her individual capacity. (ECF Nos. 13,

26

14.)

27
28

On March 28, 2017, Defendants Leon, Llamas, Melo, Pavich, and Vasquez filed a motion
for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 for failure to exhaust
1

1

administrative remedies. (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff was provided with notice of the requirements

2

for opposing a motion for summary judgment. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2012);

3

Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1988); Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411–

4

12 (9th Cir. 1988). (ECF No. 18-1.) Plaintiff’s opposition was due within twenty-one (21) days

5

of service of Defendant’s motion. More than thirty (30) days have passed, but Plaintiff has not

6

filed an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion. Plaintiff also has not otherwise

7

communicated with the Court.

8

Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED to file an opposition or a

9

statement of non-opposition to Defendant’s motion within thirty (30) days. Plaintiff is warned

10

that the failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action, with

11

prejudice, for failure to prosecute and failure to obey a court order.

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

May 2, 2017

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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