Baker v. Solano County Jail et al

Filing 96

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 08/30/12 ordering that within 30 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition, if any, to the motion for summary judgment. Failure to file an opposition will be deemed as consent to have the a) pending motion granted; b) action dismissed for lack of presecution; and c) action dismissed based on plaintiff's failure to comply with these rules and a court order. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

JERRY W. BAKER,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,
vs.
C/O J. SMITH, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

No. 2:10-cv-1208 GEB KJN P

ORDER
/

On July 19, 2012, defendants renewed their October 12, 2011 motion for

17

summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, and this court’s July 18, 2012

18

order. Despite service by mail on plaintiff’s last known address (dkt. no. 95 at 1), plaintiff has

19

not opposed the motion.

20

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

21

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

22

the granting of the motion . . . .” On August 25, 2010, plaintiff was advised of the requirements

23

for filing an opposition to a motion and that failure to oppose such a motion may be deemed a

24

waiver of opposition to the motion. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998) (en

25

banc), and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988). On July 18, 2012, the

26

court advised the parties that the Ninth Circuit required Rand notice to issue contemporaneous
1

1

with the motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 91, citing Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th

2

Cir. 2012). Plaintiff was provided a copy of the Rand notice with the court’s July 18, 2012 order.

3

(Dkt. No. 91 at 4.) On July 19, 2012, defendants provided plaintiff with the Rand notice

4

contemporaneous with the filing of the instant motion. (Dkt. No. 92-1.)

5

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

6

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

7

inherent power of the Court.” In the order filed August 25, 2010, plaintiff was also advised that

8

failure to comply with the Local Rules may result in a recommendation that the action be

9

dismissed.

10

Finally, Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

11

Involuntary Dismissal; Effect. If the plaintiff fails to prosecute
or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may
move to dismiss the action or any claim against it. Unless the
dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision
(b) and any dismissal not under this rule--except one for lack of
jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join a party under Rule
19--operates as an adjudication on the merits.

12
13
14
15

Id.

16

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

17

date of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition, if any, to the motion for summary judgment.

18

Failure to file an opposition will be deemed as consent to have the: (a) pending motion granted;

19

(b) action dismissed for lack of prosecution; and (c) action dismissed based on plaintiff’s failure

20

to comply with these rules and a court order. Such failure shall result in a recommendation that

21

this action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

22

DATED: August 30, 2012

23
24

_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26

bake1208.nop

2