Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00757/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00757-3/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 

ROBERT H. FISHER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

EDWARD BONNER, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-757-KJM-EFB P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 7, 2016, defendant Easterling filed a motion to compel plaintiff’s 

deposition and to amend the scheduling order. ECF No. 35. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition 

or a statement of no opposition to the motion. 

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

ordinarily are submitted on the record without oral argument. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(l).1

 

“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. A 

responding party’s failure “to file an opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be 

deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion and may result in the imposition 

of sanctions.” Id. 

 1

 Pursuant to the court’s May 7, 2015 order, the provisions of Local Rule 230(l) remain in 

effect regardless of any change in plaintiff’s custodial status. See ECF No. 14, ¶ 9. 

Case 2:14-cv-00757-KJM-EFB Document 37 Filed 08/04/16 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

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.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. The court may recommend 

that an action be dismissed with or without prejudice, as 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 refile 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 also notes that on May 7, 2015, it advised plaintiff of the requirements for filing 

an opposition to a discovery motion, that failure to oppose such a motion may be deemed a 

waiver of opposition to the motion and that failure to comply with the Local Rules may result in 

dismissal. 

 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, within 14 days of the date of this order, 

plaintiff shall file either an opposition to the motion or a statement of no opposition. Failure to 

comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without 

prejudice. 

DATED: August 4, 2016. 

Case 2:14-cv-00757-KJM-EFB Document 37 Filed 08/04/16 Page 2 of 2