Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01550/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01550-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDRE WELLS,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. CAGLE, et al.,

Defendant.

1:11-cv-01550-LJO-BAM (PC) 

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE 

OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF NONOPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR 

TERMINATING SANCTION

(ECF No. 128)

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Andre Wells (“Plaintiff”), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants T. Cagle and R. Perez for violations of the Eighth 

Amendment. 

On May 19, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss this matter, with prejudice, as a 

sanction for Plaintiff’s allegedly repeated refusal to attend and cooperate in his deposition. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 37, 41. (ECF No. 128.) Plaintiff was expressly informed in the notice accompanying 

that motion that, pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), his opposition was due within twenty-one (21) 

days of the date of service of that motion. (Id. at pp. 1-2.) 

///

Case 1:11-cv-01550-LJO-BAM Document 130 Filed 06/21/16 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

More than thirty (30) days have passed since Defendants’ motion was filed and served, 

but Plaintiff has not filed any opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion. Plaintiff 

filed a recent notice to the Court on May 14, 2016, stating that he had been experiencing anxiety 

and problems sleeping, but has not substantively responded to Defendants’ motion. (ECF No. 

129.)

Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED to file an opposition or a 

statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion within thirty (30) days. Plaintiff is warned 

that the failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this action, with 

prejudice, for failure to prosecute and failure to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 21, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01550-LJO-BAM Document 130 Filed 06/21/16 Page 2 of 2