Phillips v. Newman et al

Filing 22

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 12/2/2014 ORDERING that, within 21 days, plaintiff shall file either an opposition to the motion for summary judgment or a statement of no opposition.(Yin, K)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL J. PHILLIPS, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:13-cv-2431-EFB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER DOCTOR NEWMAN, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 17, 2014, defendants Newman and Renolo filed a motion for 19 summary judgment and informed plaintiff of the requirements for opposing a motion for 20 summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 21 1998). Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or a statement of no opposition to the motion. 22 In cases in which one party is incarcerated and proceeding without counsel, motions 23 ordinarily are submitted on the record without oral argument. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(l). 24 “Opposition, if any, to the granting of the motion shall be served and filed by the responding 25 party not more than twenty-one (21), days after the date of service of the motion. ” Id. A 26 responding party’s failure “to file an opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be 27 deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion and may result in the imposition 28 of sanctions.” Id. Furthermore, a party’s failure to comply with any order or with the Local 1 1 Rules “may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute 2 or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. The court may 3 recommend that an action be dismissed with or without prejudice, as appropriate, if a party 4 disobeys an order or the Local Rules. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 5 1992) (district court did not abuse discretion in dismissing pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing 6 to obey an order to re-file an amended complaint to comply with Federal Rules of Civil 7 Procedure); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for pro se 8 plaintiff’s failure to comply with local rule regarding notice of change of address affirmed). 9 On February 21, 2014, the court advised plaintiff of the requirements for filing an 10 opposition to the motion, that failure to oppose such a motion may be deemed a waiver of 11 opposition to the motion and that failure to comply with the Local Rules may result in dismissal. 12 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, within 21 days of the date of this order, 13 plaintiff shall file either an opposition to the motion or a statement of no opposition. Failure to 14 comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without 15 prejudice. 16 DATED: December 2, 2014. 17 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?