Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01494/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01494-6/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SHAUN DARNELL GARLAND, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GENA JONES, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:22-cv-01494-EFB (PC) 

ORDER 

 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983.1 ECF No. 1. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended 

Complaint (FAC). ECF No. 30; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiff has not filed an opposition 

or a statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion. 

 In cases in which one party is incarcerated and proceeding without counsel, motions 

ordinarily are submitted on the record without oral argument. Local Rule 230(l). “Opposition, if 

any, to the granting of the motion shall be served and filed by the responding party not more than 

twenty-one (21), days after the date of service of the motion.” Id. Plaintiff has failed to file any 

such opposition. A responding party’s failure “to file an opposition or to file a statement of no 

1

 Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status was revoked (ECF No. 26), and he has since paid the 

filing fee for this action. 

Case 2:22-cv-01494-EFB Document 32 Filed 01/02/25 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 

opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion and may 

result in the imposition of sanctions.” Id. 

 Furthermore, a party’s failure to comply with any order or with the Local Rules “may be 

grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or 

within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. The court may recommend that an 

action be dismissed with or without prejudice, if appropriate, if a party disobeys an order or the 

Local Rules. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court did not 

abuse discretion in dismissing pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing to obey an order to re-file an 

amended complaint to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 

1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for pro se plaintiff’s failure to comply with local rule 

regarding notice of change of address affirmed). The court will provide plaintiff one additional 

opportunity to file either an opposition brief or a statement of no opposition to the pending 

motion to dismiss. 

 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, within 21 days of this order, plaintiff shall file 

either an opposition to the motion to dismiss or a statement of no opposition. However, plaintiff 

is cautioned that the failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this 

action be dismissed. 

Dated: December 31, 2024

Case 2:22-cv-01494-EFB Document 32 Filed 01/02/25 Page 2 of 2