Brown v. Hass et al
Filing
21
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 8/21/2017 ORDERING plaintiff, within 21 days of the date of this order, to file either an opposition or a statement of no opposition to 19 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Henshaw, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MICHAEL WALLACE BROWN,
12
13
14
No. 2:15-cv-0155-JAM-EFB P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
KEVIN HASS, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff is a former county inmate proceeding without counsel in an action brought under
18
42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 7, 2017, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and
19
informed plaintiff of the requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment. See Fed. R.
20
Civ. P. 56; Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff has not filed an
21
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).1
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
28
1
That rule continues to apply in this action. Local Rule 230(l) remains in effect
regardless of plaintiff’s current custodial status. See ECF No. 12 at page 3, paragraph 9.
1
1
deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion and may result in the imposition
2
of sanctions.” Id. Furthermore, a party’s failure to comply with any order or with the Local
3
Rules “may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute
4
or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. The court may
5
recommend that an action be dismissed with or without prejudice, as appropriate, if a party
6
disobeys an order or the Local Rules. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir.
7
1992) (district court did not abuse discretion in dismissing pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing
8
to obey an order to re-file an amended complaint to comply with Federal Rules of Civil
9
Procedure); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for pro se
10
plaintiff’s failure to comply with local rule regarding notice of change of address affirmed).
11
On June 27, 2016, the court advised plaintiff of the requirements for filing an opposition
12
to the motion, that failure to oppose such a motion may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the
13
motion and that failure to comply with the Local Rules may result in dismissal.
14
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, within 21 days of the date of this order,
15
plaintiff shall file either an opposition to the motion or a statement of no opposition. Failure to
16
comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without
17
prejudice.
18
DATED: August 21, 2017.
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?