Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02024/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02024-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SALVADOR MENA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2024 MCE GGH P

vs.

MIKE KNOWLES, Warden, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 

 /

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

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendant Dr. Walter J. Schimon’s motion for

summary judgment, filed July 13, 2005. Plaintiff did not file an opposition. On August 10,

2005, defendant Schimon filed a reply to plaintiff’s non-opposition, noting that plaintiff had

failed to file an opposition and asserting that any late-filed opposition would be untimely. 

Plaintiff filed no response to defendants’ reply. 

In the order directing service filed April 9, 2004, and again in the order, filed on

June 30, 2004, the court stated that “[i]f plaintiff does not serve and file a written opposition to

the motion or a request to postpone consideration of defendants’ motion, the court may consider

the failure to act as a waiver of opposition to defendant’s motion.” See Local Rule 78-230 (m). 

Defendant Schimon filed and served a notice of motion and, in any event, defendant’s reply

Case 2:03-cv-02024-MCE -GGH Document 47 Filed 01/19/06 Page 1 of 3
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

alerted plaintiff as to the pending motion to which any opposition was overdue. 

A district court may not grant a motion for summary judgment simply because the

nonmoving party does not file opposing material, even if the failure to oppose violates a local

rule. Martinez v. Stanford, 323 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2003); Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 652

(9th Cir. March 9, 1994), citing Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 1993). 

However, when the local rule does not require, but merely permits the court to grant a motion for

summary judgment, the district court has discretion to determine whether noncompliance should

be deemed consent to the motion. Id.

In the instant case, plaintiff has been warned that his failure to oppose a motion

for summary judgment may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion. Based on

plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition, the court concludes that plaintiff has consented to

defendant’s motion for summary judgment. In the alternative, the court finds that defendant

Schimon’s motion has merit. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant Schimon’s July

13, 2005 motion for summary judgment be granted, that judgment be entered for defendant

Schimon, and that this action proceed only as to the remaining defendants.

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

Case 2:03-cv-02024-MCE -GGH Document 47 Filed 01/19/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 1/19/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

mena2024.46ggh

Case 2:03-cv-02024-MCE -GGH Document 47 Filed 01/19/06 Page 3 of 3