Dial v. Heatley et al
Filing
68
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 5/12/2015 DIRECTING the Clerk to indicate on the docket that plaintiff's current address of record is CHCF in Stockton, effective 3/13/2015; the Clerk shall re-serve 59 , 63 , 64 orders on plaintiff at his current address of record; all defendants shall, within 7 days, re-serve their respective motions for summary judgment on plaintiff's current address of record, and file separate statements with the court indicating that suc h re-service has been completed; plaintiff shall, on or before 6/12/2015, file his oppositions or statements of non-opposition to defendants' respective motions; and defendants may file their respective replies within 7 days after plaintiff's oppositions are noted on the docket.(Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RODNEY DIAL,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:12-cv-2569 AC P
v.
ORDER
SCOTT HEATLEY, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
Presently pending in this prisoner civil rights action are two separate motions for summary
17
18
judgment filed by defendants. The first motion was filed by defendant Casey on February 12,
19
2015. ECF No. 58. The second motion was filed by defendants Fong, Heatley, Smith and
20
Zamora on April 6, 2015. ECF No. 65. Plaintiff was granted until May 1, 2015 to file
21
oppositions to both motions. ECF No. 63. However, plaintiff has not filed an opposition to either
22
motion or otherwise communicated with the court.
Review of the docket indicates that plaintiff’s change of address, as the court noted by
23
24
order filed March 13, 2015, see ECF No. 59, was noted neither by the Clerk of Court or
25
defendants. Plaintiff was then transferred from California State Prison Corcoran (CSP-COR) to
26
the California Health Care Facility (CHCF),1 where he currently remains, as indicated by the
27
28
1
While none of the court’s recent orders were returned for failure of service, this may be due to
(continued…)
1
Inmate Locator website operated by the California Department of Corrections and
2
Rehabilitation.2 For this reason, plaintiff will be granted additional time to respond to both
3
motions for summary judgment.
4
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
5
1. The Clerk of Court is directed to indicate on the docket that plaintiff’s current address
6
of record is the California Health Care Facility in Stockton, effective March 13, 2015.
7
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to re-serve the following orders on plaintiff at his
8
current address of record: Order filed March 13, 2015 (ECF No. 59); Order filed March 31, 2015
9
(ECF No. 63); and Order filed April 2, 2015 (ECF No. 64).
10
3. All defendants shall, within seven days after the filing date of this order, re-serve their
11
respective motions for summary judgment on plaintiff at his current address of record, and file
12
separate statements with the court indicating that such re-service has been completed.
13
14
15
16
4. Plaintiff shall, on or before June 12, 2015, file his oppositions or statements of nonopposition to defendants’ respective motions.
5. Defendants may file their respective replies within seven days after plaintiff’s
oppositions are noted on the docket, see Local Rule 230(l).
17
6. Failure of plaintiff to timely file oppositions to the pending motions for summary
18
judgment will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice for
19
failure to prosecute, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
20
DATED: May 12, 2015
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
the forwarding of plaintiff’s legal materials by staff at CSP-COR to plaintiff at CHCF. See ECF
No. 63 (requesting that CSP-COR staff consolidate plaintiff’s legal property as of that date and
send it to plaintiff at CHCF).
2
See http://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/search.aspx. See also Fed. R. Evid. 201 (court may take
judicial notice of facts that are capable of accurate determination by sources whose accuracy
cannot reasonably be questioned).
28
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?