Arreola v. Pomazal et al

Filing 41

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 6/30/2017 ORDERING Plaintiff to file opposition, if any, to 37 Motion for Summary Judgment of defendant Dr. Lankford within 20 days of the date of this order. (Henshaw, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSE ARREOLA,

12
13

No. 2:15-cv-1179 JAM DB P
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

14

ANDREW POMAZAL, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights

18

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges defendants were deliberately indifferent to his

19

medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Both defendants Pomazal and Lankford

20

filed summary judgment motions. While plaintiff filed an opposition to defendant Pomazal’s

21

summary judgment motion, plaintiff did not file an opposition to defendant Lankford’s motion.

22

Local Rule 230(l) provides in part: “Failure of the responding party to file written

23

opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to

24

the granting of the motion . . . .” In the court’s order filed November 10, 2015, plaintiff was

25

advised that the failure to oppose a motion for summary judgment may be deemed a waiver of

26

opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 12 at 3.)

27

Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules “may be grounds for

28

imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of
1

1

the Court.” In the November 2015 order, plaintiff was also advised that failure to comply with

2

the Local Rules may result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed.

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within twenty days of the date of this

4

order, plaintiff shall file an opposition, if any, to the motion for summary judgment of defendant

5

Dr. Lankford. Failure to file an opposition will be deemed as a statement of non-opposition and

6

shall result in a recommendation that plaintiff’s claims against Dr. Lankford be dismissed

7

pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

8

Dated: June 30, 2017

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

DLB:9
DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/arre1179.nooppo

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2