Jacobsen v. Curran et al

Filing 92

ORDER REQUIRING Plaintiff to File Opposition to Defendant's 90 Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 12/12/2018. (21-Day Deadline)(Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

MICHAEL JACOBSEN,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12

Case No. 1:16-cv-01050-LJO-JDP
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

v.
OFFICER MALDINADO, et al.,

TWENTY-ONE-DAY DEADLINE
13

Defendants.

14
15

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action brought

16 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 26, 2018, defendant Gonzalez moved for summary
17 judgment. ECF No. 90. Plaintiff had twenty-one (21) days to oppose defendant’s motion
18 under Local Rule 230(l), but he failed to do so. See ECF No. 91.
19

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

20 waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion and may result in the imposition of
21 sanctions.” As a sanction, the court may treat the facts asserted by defendant as “undisputed
22 for purposes of the motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2). The court may also dismiss the case for
23 plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order.
24

The court will allow plaintiff one more opportunity to oppose the motion for summary

25 judgment. Plaintiff must file a response to defendant’s motion for summary judgment within
26 twenty-one (21) days of this order and explain the reason for his delay. If plaintiff fails to do
27 so, the court will deem defendant’s motion unopposed, which could result in granting the
28

1

1 motion on the merits. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(3). Failure to comply with this order may also
2 result in dismissal of this action.
3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
Dated:

December 12, 2018

6

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