Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01031/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01031-17/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 - 08cv1031

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRESNO DIVISION

CHARLES AUSTIN PARKS, CDCR #K72151,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 1:08-CV-1031-H (JMA)

ORDER REGARDING

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF

vs. DISMISSAL

R. TAIT, et al.,

Defendants.

On June 1, 2010, Defendants Tait, Huff, Davis, Flores, Berry and Rendon filed a

Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. (Doc. No. 64.) On June 9, 2010,

the Court issued a briefing schedule and provided Plaintiff with notice regarding his

obligations to oppose summary judgment pursuant to Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409

(9th Cir. 1988) and Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), directing

Plaintiff to file and serve his Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition no later than July 12,

2010. (Doc. No. 65.) Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s June 9, 2010 Order. On July

21, 2010, the Court issued an Order reminding Plaintiff of his obligation to oppose Defendants’

Motion for Summary Judgment and sua sponte extending the time in which he may do so.

(Doc. No. 71.) On July 22, 2010, Plaintiff filed his response in opposition to Defendants’

Case 1:08-cv-01031-MLH -JMA Document 78 Filed 07/29/10 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 - 08cv1031

motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 72.) On July 22, 2010, Plaintiff also filed a motion

for voluntary dismissal of Defendants Flores and Davis, and for dismissal of Defendants Tait

and Rendon on “the claim of deliberate indifference only.” (Doc. No. 73.) Plaintiff indicates

that he wishes to dismiss Defendants Flores and Davis due to “circumvention of the discovery

process” by Defendants’ counsel, which Plaintiff claims “prevented [him] from filing a proper

opposition” to the motion for summary judgment. (Id. at 1.) At the time Plaintiff filed the

motion for voluntary dismissal, Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery was pending in this

case. (See Doc. No. 66.) The motion has since been decided, and the discovery issue is now

resolved. (Doc. No. 76.) Accordingly, the Court reminds Plaintiff of his obligation to oppose

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. See Rand, 154 F.3d at 960. Because all

discovery issues in the case have been resolved, Plaintiff is directed to file his response in

opposition to Defendants Flores and Davis’s motion for summary judgment on or before

August 12, 2010. In the alternative, Plaintiff may file a motion to dismiss Defendants Flores

and Davis on or before August 12, 2010. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 28, 2010

________________________________

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 1:08-cv-01031-MLH -JMA Document 78 Filed 07/29/10 Page 2 of 2