Turner v. Dickinson et al

Filing 49

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 01/02/13 ordering that within 14 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, if plaintiff no longer wishes to proceed in this matter, he shall file a request to dismiss this action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41 (a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 NATHAN KEVIN TURNER, 11 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff, No. 2:09-cv-00632-GEB-DAD P vs. KATHLINE DICKINSON, et al., Defendants. ORDER / On August 16, 2012, defendant Rohrer filed a motion for summary judgment 17 pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On October 15, 2012 and again on 18 November 27, 2012, plaintiff was granted extensions of time to file his opposition to that motion. 19 (See Docs. No. 45 & 48.) The second order granting an extension of time to oppose the pending 20 motion required plaintiff to place his opposition in the mail no later than December 17, 2012. 21 Nonetheless, plaintiff has still not filed the required opposition. By this order, the court will 22 provide plaintiff with a final extension of time to file his opposition or a statement of non- 23 opposition to defendant Rohrer ‘s motion for summary judgment. 24 Local Rule 230(l) provides in part: “Failure of the responding party to file an 25 opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to 26 the granting of the motion and may result in the imposition of sanctions.” On October 21, 2010, 1 1 plaintiff was advised of the requirements for filing an opposition to a motion for summary 2 judgment and that failure to oppose such a motion may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the 3 motion. (See Doc. No. 16 at 4-5.) With his motion for summary judgment defendant Rohrer has 4 also included the notice required by Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2012), Rand v. 5 Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 6 (9th Cir. 1988), advising plaintiff of the requirements for opposing a motion for summary 7 judgment. 8 9 Finally, plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions 10 authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” Thus, in light of the 11 procedural history summarized above including plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s 12 prior orders, plaintiff is warned that his failure to comply with the Local Rules and with this 13 order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within fourteen days of the date of 15 this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment, or in the 16 alternative, if plaintiff no longer wishes to proceed with this matter, he shall file a request to 17 dismiss this action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil 18 Procedure. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order will result in the issuance of a 19 recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of 20 Civil Procedure. 21 DATED: January 2, 2013. 22 23 24 DAD:4 turn632.oppo 25 26 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?