Nguyen v. California Prison Health Service, et al.

Filing 67

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 4/06/17 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. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NAM BA NGUYEN, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 2:13-cv-963-MCE-EFB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER CALIFORNIA PRISON HEALTH SERVICE, et al., Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 2, 2017, defendants Osman and Champen filed a motion for summary 20 judgment and informed plaintiff of the requirements for opposing a motion for summary 21 judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998). 22 Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or a statement of no opposition to the motion. 23 In cases in which one party is incarcerated and proceeding without counsel, motions 24 ordinarily are submitted on the record without oral argument. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(l). 25 “Opposition, if any, to the granting of the motion shall be served and filed by the responding 26 party not more than twenty-one (21), days after the date of service of the motion. ” Id. A 27 responding party’s failure “to file an opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be 28 deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion and may result in the imposition 1 1 of sanctions.” Id. Furthermore, a party’s failure to comply with any order or with the Local 2 Rules “may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute 3 or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. The court may 4 recommend that an action be dismissed with or without prejudice, as appropriate, if a party 5 disobeys an order or the Local Rules. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 6 1992) (district court did not abuse discretion in dismissing pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing 7 to obey an order to re-file an amended complaint to comply with Federal Rules of Civil 8 Procedure); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for pro se 9 plaintiff’s failure to comply with local rule regarding notice of change of address affirmed). 10 On June 18, 2015, the court advised plaintiff of the requirements for filing an opposition 11 to the motion, that failure to oppose such a motion may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the 12 motion and that failure to comply with the Local Rules may result in dismissal. ECF No. 19. 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: April 6, 2017. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 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?