Pasillas v. Soto et al

Filing 23

ORDER REQUIRING Plaintiff to FILE Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment; Thirty (30) Day Deadline signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 3/26/2018. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

13
14

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE
OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF NONOPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff,

11
12

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00487-SAB

ERNESTO PASILLAS,

v.

(ECF No. 21)

C/O SOTO,

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

Defendant.

15
16

Plaintiff Ernesto Pasillas is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

17 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds on Plaintiff’s claim
18 against Defendant Soto for the failure to intervene while Plaintiff was assaulted by another
19 inmate, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
20

On February 23, 2018, Defendant Soto filed a motion for summary judgment under

21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 on the grounds that she is entitled to judgment as a matter of
22 law on Plaintiff’s claim. (ECF No. 21) Plaintiff was provided with notice of the requirements for
23 opposing a motion for summary judgment. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2012); Rand
24 v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1988); Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411–12
25 (9th Cir. 1988). (ECF No. 21 at 1-2.)
26

Plaintiff’s response was due within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of

27 Defendant’s motion. That deadline has passed, but Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or
28 statement of non-opposition to the motion.

1

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

1

2 statement of non-opposition to Defendant’s motion within thirty (30) days.
3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 Dated:

March 26, 2018
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2