Martinez v. Three Unknown Guards of CDCR, et al.

Filing 57

ORDER REQUIRING Plaintiff to File Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to Defendant's 52 Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 11/21/2019. TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE. (Orozco, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTONIO MARTINEZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

F. ROJAS, et al.,

15
16
17
18
19
20

Case No. 1:16-cv-01467-DAD-BAM (PC)
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE
OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF NONOPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR
FAILURE TO EXHAUST
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

Defendants.
(ECF No. 52)
TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff Antonio Martinez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On September 10, 2019, Defendant F. Rojas filed a motion for summary judgment for

21

failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (ECF No. 52.) Plaintiff was provided with notice of

22

the requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934

23

(9th Cir. 2012); Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir.1988); Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849

24

F.2d 409, 411–12 (9th Cir.1988). (ECF No. 52-1.)

25

On October 7, 2019, Plaintiff’s motion for a 60-day extension of time to file an opposition

26

to Defendant’s summary judgment motion was docketed. (ECF No. 54.) On October 9, 2019, the

27

Court granted in part Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time and ordered Plaintiff to file his

28

opposition to Defendant’s summary judgment motion no later than thirty (30) days from the date
1

1
2

of service of the order. (ECF No. 55.)
Therefore, Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was due on

3

or before November 12, 2019. However, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition, or a statement of

4

non-opposition, to Defendant’s summary judgment motion or filed an extension of time to file a

5

response to the motion.

6

Accordingly, pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED to file an

7

opposition, or a statement of non-opposition, to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment

8

within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order. Plaintiff is warned that the

9

failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation to dismiss this action for

10

failure to prosecute and failure to obey a court order.

11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

November 21, 2019

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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