Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00292/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00292-6/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

 This individual is identified as defendant Numering in the second amended complaint.

1

 By order filed September 9, 2009, the United States Marshal was ordered to serve 2

process on the six defendants who have moved to dismiss, and on defendant H. Fleishman. 

Service on defendant Fleishman was returned unexecuted. By order filed December 1, 2009,

plaintiff was directed to provide, within sixty days, additional information for service of process

on defendant Fleishman.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES EVANS,

Plaintiff, No. 2:09-cv-0292-JFM (PC)

vs.

D. K. SISTO, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s second amended complaint filed July

29, 2009. On December 3, 2009, defendants Singh, Telford, Terrazas, Nuehring , McDonald and 1

Felker filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b). Plaintiff has 2

not opposed the motion. 

/////

Case 2:09-cv-00292-TLN-AC Document 35 Filed 01/07/10 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

2

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 . . . .” On September 9, 2009, 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. 

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 order filed September 9, 2009, plaintiff was advised 

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

dismissed.

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

date of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition, if any he has, to the motion to dismiss or a

statement of non-opposition. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation

that plaintiff’s claims against defendants Singh, Telford, Terrazas, Nuehring, McDonald and

Felker be dismissed pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

DATED: January 6, 2010.

12

evan0292.46osc

Case 2:09-cv-00292-TLN-AC Document 35 Filed 01/07/10 Page 2 of 2