Ortiz v. Reynolds et al

Filing 42

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 5/8/12 ORDERING that within 21 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file either an opposition to the motion or a statement of no opposition. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

JOSE B. ORTIZ,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13

vs.
J. REYNOLDS, et al.,
Defendants.

14

ORDER
/

15
16

No. CIV S-10-1380 MCE EFB P

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

17

U.S.C. § 1983. On March 23, 2012, defendant Miranda filed a motion for summary judgment.

18

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or a statement of no opposition to the

19

motion.

20

In cases in which one party is incarcerated and proceeding without counsel, motions

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 with the Clerk by the responding

23

party not more than eighteen (18) days, plus three (3) days for mailing or electronic service, after

24

the date of service of the motion.” Id. A responding party’s failure “to file written opposition or

25

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

26

the motion and may result in the imposition of sanctions.” Id. Furthermore, a party’s failure to
1

1

comply with any order or with the Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition of any and all

2

sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule

3

110. The court may recommend that an action be dismissed with or without prejudice, as

4

appropriate, if a party disobeys an order or the Local Rules. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d

5

1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court did not abuse discretion in dismissing pro se plaintiff’s

6

complaint for failing to obey an order to re-file an amended complaint to comply with Federal

7

Rules of Civil Procedure); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for

8

pro se plaintiff’s failure to comply with local rule regarding notice of change of address

9

affirmed).

10

On November 3, 2010, 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 dismissal.

13

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, within 21 days of the date of this order,

14

plaintiff shall file either an opposition to the motion or a statement of no opposition. Failure to

15

comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without

16

prejudice.

17

DATED: May 8, 2012.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2