Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00963/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00963-9/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 

NAM BA NGUYEN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CALIFORNIA PRISON HEALTH 

SERVICE, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-963-MCE-EFB P 

ORDER 

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

42 U.S.C. § 1983.1

 On September 6, 2016, defendant Elam filed a motion to dismiss on the 

ground that the second amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). On September 15, 2016, the court extended plaintiff’s deadline to 

oppose the motion to December 27, 2016.2

 ECF No. 55. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or a 

statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion. 

 Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), which applies to defendant’s motion to dismiss (see ECF 

No. 19, ¶ 9), an “[o]pposition, 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. 

 1

 According to defendants, plaintiff was paroled on September 8, 2016, and subsequently 

taken into custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. See ECF No. 52. 

2

 Plaintiff’s October 3, 2016 request for an extension of time (ECF No. 57) is therefore 

denied as moot. 

Case 2:13-cv-00963-MCE-EFB Document 58 Filed 01/10/17 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

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. 

 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, 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 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). 

 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

1. Within 21 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file either an opposition to the 

motion to dismiss or a statement of no opposition. Failure to comply with this order 

may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 

2. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time (ECF No. 57) is denied as moot. 

DATED: January 10, 2017. 

Case 2:13-cv-00963-MCE-EFB Document 58 Filed 01/10/17 Page 2 of 2