Nguyen v. California Prison Health Service, et al.
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 1/10/17 ORDERING that within 21 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file either an opposition to the motion to dismiss or a statement of no opposition. Plaintiff's request for an extension of time (ECF No. 57 ) is DENIED as moot. (Dillon, M)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
NAM BA NGUYEN,
No. 2:13-cv-963-MCE-EFB P
CALIFORNIA PRISON HEALTH
SERVICE, et al.,
Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under
42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 On September 6, 2016, defendant Elam filed a motion to dismiss on the
ground that the second amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). On September 15, 2016, the court extended plaintiff’s deadline to
oppose the motion to December 27, 2016.2 ECF No. 55. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or a
statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion.
Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), which applies to defendant’s motion to dismiss (see ECF
No. 19, ¶ 9), an “[o]pposition, if any, to the granting of the motion shall be served and filed by the
responding party not more than twenty-one (21), days after the date of service of the motion.” Id.
According to defendants, plaintiff was paroled on September 8, 2016, and subsequently
taken into custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. See ECF No. 52.
Plaintiff’s October 3, 2016 request for an extension of time (ECF No. 57) is therefore
denied as moot.
A responding party’s failure “to file an opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be
deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion and may result in the imposition
of sanctions.” Id.
Furthermore, a party’s failure to comply with any order or with the Local Rules “may be
grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or
within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. The court may recommend that an
action be dismissed with or without prejudice, as appropriate, if a party disobeys an order or the
Local Rules. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court did not
abuse discretion in dismissing pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing to obey an order to re-file an
amended complaint to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d
1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for pro se plaintiff’s failure to comply with local rule
regarding notice of change of address affirmed).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
Within 21 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file either an opposition to the
motion to dismiss or a statement of no opposition. Failure to comply with this order
may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice.
2. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time (ECF No. 57) is denied as moot.
DATED: January 10, 2017.
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?