Nguyen v. California Prison Health Service, et al.
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)
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 state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. On March 2, 2017, defendants Osman and Champen filed a motion for summary
judgment and informed plaintiff of the requirements for opposing a motion for summary
judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998).
Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or a statement of no opposition to the motion.
In cases in which one party is incarcerated and proceeding without counsel, motions
ordinarily are submitted on the record without oral argument. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(l).
“Opposition, 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. 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.” E.D. Cal. 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).
On June 18, 2015, the court advised plaintiff of the requirements for filing an opposition
to the motion, that failure to oppose such a motion may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the
motion and that failure to comply with the Local Rules may result in dismissal. ECF No. 19.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED 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. Failure to
comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without
DATED: April 6, 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?