Hall v. San Joaquin County Jail, et al

Filing 70

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 6/19/14 ORDERING that within thirty days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition, if any, to defendants motion for summary judgment. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TERRELL D. HALL,

12
13
14
15

No. 2: 13-cv-0324 AC P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY JAIL, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19

On May 6, 2014, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 63, pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Plaintiff has not opposed the motion.
Local Rule 230(l) provides in part: “Failure of the responding party to file written

20

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

21

the granting of the motion . . . .” By Order filed on November 14, 2013, ECF No. 31, plaintiff

22

was advised of the requirements for filing an opposition to the motion and that failure to oppose

23

such a motion may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion. See Rand v. Rowland, 154

24

F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1035 (1999), and Klingele v.

25

Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1988). In addition, defendants provided the concurrent Rand

26

notice, ECF No. 63, required by Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2012), setting forth the

27

requirements to oppose a motion for summary judgment.

28

Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules “may be grounds for
1

1

imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of

2

the Court.” In the order filed November 14, 2013, plaintiff was advised that failure to comply

3

with the Local Rules may result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed. The Ninth

4

Circuit has recently held that a district court is prohibited from granting a summary judgment

5

motion solely based on a failure to oppose the motion notwithstanding any local rule suggesting

6

otherwise. Heinemann v. Satterberg, 731 F. 3d 914, 916 (9th Cir. 2013). Nevertheless, a “failure

7

to respond to a fact asserted in the motion permits a court to ‘consider the fact undisputed for

8

purposes of the motion.’” Id. at 917 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2)).

9

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

10

this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition, if any, to defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

11

Failure to file an opposition, properly addressing defendants’ assertions of fact, will result in the

12

facts asserted by the motion to be considered by the court as undisputed for purposes of

13

adjudicating the motion.

14

DATED: June 19, 2014

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2