Pierce v. Alameida

Filing 227

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 06/30/15 ordering that within 14 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition, if any, to defendant Dr. Luca's motion to dismiss. Alternatively, if plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue his claims against defendant Dr. Luca he may file a request to voluntarily dismiss this defendant. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

AARON JAMES PIERCE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:08-cv-1148 MCE DAD P

v.

ORDER

DOCTOR BARON et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action brought pursuant

18

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 27, 2015, defendant Dr. Luca filed a motion to dismiss the

19

claims brought against him by plaintiff based on the doctrine of res judicata. Upon review of the

20

docket, it appears that plaintiff has never opposed that motion.

21

Local Rule 230(l) provides in part: “Failure of the responding party to file written

22

opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to

23

the granting of the motion . . . .” On September 10, 2014, the court advised plaintiff of the

24

requirements for filing an opposition to the motion and that failure to oppose such a motion may

25

be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion.

26

Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules “may be grounds for

27

imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of

28

the Court.” In the order filed September 10, 2014, plaintiff was also advised that failure to
1

1

comply with the Local Rules may result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed.

2

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within fourteen days of the date

3

of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition, if any, to defendant Dr. Luca’s motion to dismiss.

4

Failure to file an opposition will be deemed as a statement of non-opposition and may result in a

5

recommendation that plaintiff’s action against defendant Luca be dismissed. Alternatively, if

6

plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue his claims against defendant Dr. Luca he may file a request to

7

voluntarily dismiss this defendant.

8

Dated: June 30, 2015

9
10
11

DAD:9
pier1148.46

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2