Johnson v. North Kern State Prison et al

Filing 50

ORDER requiring Plaintiff to file opposition or statement of non-opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment 46 signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/2/2018. 21-Day Filing Deadline. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CEDRIC CHESTER JOHNSON,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.

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

NORTH KERN STATE PRISON, et al.,
(ECF No. 46)

15

Defendants.
TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

16
17

Case No. 1:16-cv-01371-DAD-BAM (PC)

Plaintiff Cedric Chester Johnson (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se

18

and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action

19

proceeds on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendants Speakman, Rocha, Jones, and

20

Kennemer (collectively, “Defendants”) for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth

21

Amendment.

22

On January 5, 2018, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 43.)

23

Plaintiff was provided with notice of the requirements for opposing a motion for summary

24

judgment. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2012); Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957

25

(9th Cir.1988); Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411–12 (9th Cir.1988). (ECF No. 43-1.)

26

On January 19, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for a sixty-day extension of time to respond

27

to the motion, (ECF No. 46.) Plaintiff stated that he would be released from prison on January

28

21, 2018, and was seeking additional time to hire an attorney. (Id.) On January 22, 2018, the
1

1

Court granted the request, specifically warning Plaintiff that his failure to retain an attorney in

2

time to file a timely response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment would not constitute

3

good cause for a further extension of time. (ECF No. 48.)

4

Plaintiff’s response to the motion for summary judgment was due on or before March 26,

5

2018, and no response has been filed. Plaintiff has not otherwise communicated with the Court.

6

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

7

statement of non-opposition to Defendant’s motion within twenty-one (21) days. Plaintiff is

8

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

9

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

10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

April 2, 2018

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2