Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02103/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02103-21/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 

VINCENTE SOLOMON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

J. NEGRETE, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:10-cv-2103 WBS AC P 

ORDER 

 On November 6, 2013, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. ECF No. 121. Plaintiff has been given two extensions of 

times to file an opposition to the motion. ECF Nos. 125 and 127. The second extension, ECF 

No. 127, stated that there would be no further extension granted. Plaintiff has not filed an 

opposition to the motion. 

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

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

the granting of the motion . . . .” By Orders filed on October 18, 2011 (ECF No. 53) and January 

17, 2012 (ECF No. 75), plaintiff was advised of the requirements for filing an opposition to the 

motion and that failure to oppose such a motion may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the 

motion. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), cert. denied, 527 

U.S. 1035 (1999), and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1988). In addition, 

Case 2:10-cv-02103-WBS-AC Document 133 Filed 03/14/14 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

defendants provided the concurrent Rand notice required by Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th 

Cir. 2012), setting forth the requirements to oppose a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 

122. 

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

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

the Court.” In the orders filed on October 18, 2011 and on January 17, 2012, plaintiff was 

advised that failure to comply with the Local Rules may result in a recommendation that the 

action be dismissed. The Ninth Circuit has recently held that a district court is prohibited from 

granting a summary judgment motion solely based on a failure to oppose the motion 

notwithstanding any local rule suggesting otherwise. Heinemann v. Satterberg, 731 F. 3d 914, 

916 (9th Cir. 2013). Nevertheless, a “failure to respond to a fact asserted in the motion permits a 

court to ‘consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion.’” Id. at 917 (quoting Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 56(e)(2)). 

 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within thirty days of the date of 

this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition, if any, to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 

Failure to file an opposition, properly addressing defendants’ assertions of fact, will result in the 

facts asserted by the motion to be considered by the court as undisputed for purposes of 

adjudicating the motion. 

DATED: March 13, 2014 

Case 2:10-cv-02103-WBS-AC Document 133 Filed 03/14/14 Page 2 of 2