Dixie v. Virga et al

Filing 48

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/4/14 ORDERING that the courts February 21, 2014 order to show cause 44 is DISCHARGED. Within 21 days of this order, defendants shall file an opposition to plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction 37 . Plaintiff may file a reply, if any, within seven days after defendants file their opposition.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMES LEWIS DIXIE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:12-cv-2626 LKK DAD

v.

ORDER

TIM VIRGA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42

17
18

U.S.C. § 1983. On December 12, 2013, plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (ECF

19

No. 37.) Defendants did not file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to that motion. On

20

February 21, 2014, the court issued an order directing defendants to show cause for why they did

21

not file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to plaintiff’s motion within the twenty-one

22

day period provided under Local Rule 230(l). (ECF No. 44.) Defendants have timely filed a

23

response to the court’s order. (ECF No. 45.) In their response, defendants state that they did not

24

file an opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction pursuant to Local Rule 230(l) because

25

they believed that they were excused from doing so by a previous court order issued on February

26

6, 2013 directing service by the United States Marshall (ECF No. 16). Defendants specifically

27

rely on the following language from that order:

28

/////
1

1

Unless otherwise ordered, all motions to dismiss, motions for
summary judgment, motions concerning discovery, motions
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7, 11, 12, 15, 41, 55, 56, 59 and 60, and
E.D. Cal. R. 110, shall be briefed pursuant to L.R. 230(l). Failure
to timely oppose such a motion may be deemed a waiver of
opposition to the motion. See L.R. 230(l). Opposition to all other
motions need be filed only as directed by the court.

2
3
4
5

(ECF No. 16 at 3 (emphasis added).)

6

The court finds that defendants reasonably relied on this language in not filing an

7

opposition to plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction within the time set out in Local Rule

8

230(l). Accordingly, good cause appearing, the court’s order to show cause (ECF No. 44) is

9

discharged. Pursuant to its February 6, 2013 order, the court directs defendants to file an

10

opposition to plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 37) within twenty-one days

11

of this order. Plaintiff shall file a reply, if any, within seven days after defendants file their

12

opposition.

13

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

14

1. The court’s February 21, 2014 order to show cause (ECF No. 44) is DISCHARGED.

15

2. Within twenty-one days of this order, defendants shall file an opposition to plaintiff’s

16
17

Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 37).
1. Plaintiff may file a reply, if any, within seven days after defendants file their

18

opposition.

19

Dated: March 4, 2014

20
21
dixi2626.oscdischarge.docx

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2