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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?