Cieniawa v. White et al

Filing 75

ORDER finding pltf's motion for entry of default 65 MOOT, deeming pltf's motion to compel 66 & writ for prisoner release 73 WITHDRAWN for failure to file brs in supp, DENYING defts' motion to take depo of pltf 70 w/out prejudic e to renew motion after ct rules on pending motion to dismiss amended complaint, & directing pltf to respond to defts' motion to dismiss 71 by 12/1/11... w/ failure to comply possibly resulting in motion being deemed unopposed & granted or dismissal of case for failure to prosecute. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 11/16/11. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JASON CIENIAWA,
Plaintiff
v.
DR. DENTIST DAVID WHITE, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:09-CV-2130
(Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 16th day of November, 2011, upon consideration of various
motions filed by the parties (Docs. 65, 66, 70, 71, 73), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default (Doc. 65) is rendered MOOT by
the filing of plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. 64).

2.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. 66) and his “writ for prisoner
release” (Doc. 73), which is construed as a motion for release, are
deemed WITHDRAWN for failure to file briefs in support of the
motions. See L.R. 7.5.

3.

Defendants’ motion to take the deposition of plaintiff (Doc. 70) is
DENIED without prejudice to renew the motion after the Court rules
on defendants’ pending motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended
complaint (Doc. 71) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6).

4.

Plaintiff shall respond to defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 71) the
complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on or
before December 1, 2011. Failure to comply with this order may result
in deeming the motion unopposed and granting the motion or
dismissal of this case for failure to prosecute. See FED . R. CIV . P. 41(b)
(“If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a
court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim
against it.”); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962)
(interpreting Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) as permitting sua
sponte dismissals by the court); Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.,
747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir. 1984).

S/ Christopher C. Conner
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
United States District Judge