Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-02551/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-02551-4/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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KEVIN BARTHOLOMEW, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

S. MOSS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:17-cv-2551-KJM-EFB P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. He requests an extension of time to file his reply in support of his motion for 

summary judgment. ECF No. 35. That request is granted. 

However, the court notes that on January 22, 2020 defendants filed a motion for summary 

judgment, ECF No. 31, and informed plaintiff of the requirements for opposing a motion for 

summary judgment.1

 Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or a statement of no opposition to that 

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 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Case 2:17-cv-02551-KJM-JDP Document 36 Filed 02/21/20 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 

“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. 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 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). 

 On February 6, 2019, the court advised plaintiff of the requirements for filing an 

opposition to the 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: 

1. Plaintiff’s request (ECF No. 35) is granted and plaintiff has 30 days from the date this 

order is served to file his reply; and 

2. Within 30 days from the date this order is served, plaintiff shall also file an opposition 

to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Failure to comply with this order may 

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

 So ordered. 

Dated: February 20, 2020. 

Case 2:17-cv-02551-KJM-JDP Document 36 Filed 02/21/20 Page 2 of 2