Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01974/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01974-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

RENELL THORPE,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. HEARN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2: 19-cv-1974 KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on plaintiff’s amended complaint filed October 30, 

2019 (ECF No. 11), as to the following claims: 1) defendant Hearn used excessive force, in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment, when he allegedly shot plaintiff in the face with a 40 mm 

impact round on September 14 2018; 2) defendant Parham allegedly retaliated against plaintiff for 

filing a grievance against him on July 4, 2018, by filing two rules violation reports against 

plaintiff in August 2018; 3) defendant Parham allegedly retaliated against plaintiff for filing 

grievances against him, including a grievance filed against defendant Parham on August 30, 

2018, by denying plaintiff access to his property after plaintiff was moved to administrative 

segregation; 4) defendant Hearn allegedly retaliated against plaintiff for filing a grievance against 

defendant Parham by inciting inmate Sotolongo to attack plaintiff and by shooting plaintiff in the 

face with the 40 mm round on September 14, 2018; 5) defendant Erickson provided inadequate 

Case 2:19-cv-01974-KJM-KJN Document 34 Filed 04/13/20 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

27

28

2

medical care in violation of the Eight Amendment when defendant Erickson failed to treat the

injuries plaintiff suffered as a result of being shot in the face with the 40 mm impact round on 

September 14, 2018; and 6) defendant Hearn violated the Eighth Amendment by allegedly telling 

inmate Sotolongo that plaintiff was a snitch and sending inmate Sotolongo to “handle” plaintiff. 

(See ECF No. 13.)

On March 10, 2020, defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment. (ECF No. 

31.) Defendants argue that plaintiff failed to administratively exhaust his retaliation claims 

against defendant Hearn and Parham and his claim alleging that defendant Hearn violated the 

Eighth Amendment by allegedly telling inmate Sotolongo that plaintiff was a snitch.1 Plaintiff 

has not opposed the motion for partial summary judgment.

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 . . . .” Id. On February 27, 2020 and March 10, 2020, plaintiff was 

advised of the requirements for filing an opposition to a motion and that failure to oppose such a 

motion may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 

952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 

1988).] 

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.” Id. 

////

////

////

////

1

 In the motion for partial summary judgment, defendants state that plaintiff administratively 

exhausted his claim alleging that defendant Hearn used excessive force when he allegedly fired 

the 40mm launcher that struck plaintiff in the face. The motion for partial summary judgment 

does not address the Eighth Amendment inadequate medical care claim against defendant 

Erickson. 

Case 2:19-cv-01974-KJM-KJN Document 34 Filed 04/13/20 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

27

28

3

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within sixty days from the date 

of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition, if any, to the motion for partial summary judgment. 

Failure to file an opposition will be deemed as consent to having the motion for partial summary 

judgment granted. 

Dated: April 13, 2020

Thorp1974.nop

Case 2:19-cv-01974-KJM-KJN Document 34 Filed 04/13/20 Page 3 of 3