Warner v. Cate et al

Filing 58

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 4/19/12 ORDERING that the pltf shall file either an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the 53 Motion for Summary Judgment within 21 days. (Manzer, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

EARL WARNER,
Plaintiff,

11
vs.

12
13

No. CIV S-09-1568 KJM EFB P

MATTHEW L. CATE, et al.,
Defendants.

14

ORDER
/

15

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

16
17

U.S.C. § 1983. On February 21, 2012, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment

18

pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dckt. No. 53. Plaintiff has not

19

opposed the motion.
In cases in which one party is incarcerated and proceeding without counsel, motions

20
21

ordinarily are submitted on the record without oral argument. Local Rule 230(l). “Opposition, if

22

any, to the granting of the motion shall be served and filed by the responding party not more than

23

twenty-one (21), days after the date of service of the motion.” Id. A responding party’s failure

24

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

25

opposition to the granting of the motion and may result in the imposition of sanctions.” Id.

26

////
1

1

Furthermore, a party’s failure to comply with any order or with the Local Rules “may be

2

grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or

3

within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. The court may recommend that an

4

action be dismissed with or without prejudice, as appropriate, if a party disobeys an order or the

5

Local Rules. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court did not

6

abuse discretion in dismissing pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing to obey an order to re-file

7

an amended complaint to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Carey v. King, 856

8

F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for pro se plaintiff’s failure to comply with local

9

rule regarding notice of change of address affirmed).

10

On January 4, 2011, the court advised plaintiff of the requirements for filing an

11

opposition to the motion, that failure to oppose such a motion may be deemed a waiver of

12

opposition to the motion, and that failure to comply with the Local Rules may result in a

13

recommendation of dismissal.

14

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, within twenty-one days of the date of this

15

order, plaintiff shall either file either an opposition to the motion for summary judgment or a

16

statement of non-opposition. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation

17

that this action be dismissed without prejudice.

18

DATED: April 19, 2012.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2