Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01086/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01086-3/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

 The November 10, 2005 order instructed the Clerk of the Court to serve upon plaintiff a 1

copy of the Local Rules of Court. (Order filed Nov. 10, 2005, at 5.)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAURICE BROWN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1086 MCE DAD P 

vs.

M. PENNER, M.D., et al.,

Defendants. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action. In

accordance with the court’s order filed November 10, 2005, the United States Marshal served

plaintiff’s complaint on defendants Penner and Turella. On January 17, 2006, defendants filed a

motion to dismiss this action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and non-enumerated Rule 12(b) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff has not responded to the motion.

The court’s November 10, 2005 order provides that all motions to dismiss and all

motions pursuant to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “shall be briefed pursuant to

Local Rule 78-230(m)” and cautions that “[f]ailure to oppose such a motion timely may be

deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion.” (Order filed Nov. 10, 2005, at 3. ) In addition, 1

Case 2:05-cv-01086-MCE -DAD Document 17 Filed 04/07/06 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

 The Marshal was directed to serve each defendant with a copy of the court’s November 2

10, 2005 order. Despite the provisions of that order, and contrary to Local Rule 78-230(m),

which is set forth in full in defendants’ motion, defendants have erroneously advised plaintiff that

his “opposition must be filed in accord with the scheduling order to be issued by the Court in this

matter, and if no scheduling order is issued by the Court, not more than 30 days after the date of

the service of this notice.” (Defs.’ Notice of Mot. and Mot. to Dismiss Compl. at 2.) Plaintiff is

directed to disregard assertions by defendants that conflict with court orders and applicable rules.

2

the order provides specific instructions for opposing a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies brought pursuant to non-enumerated Rule 12(b). (Id. at 3-4.)

Local Rule 78-230(m) provides that any opposition to the granting of a motion

filed in a prisoner case “shall be served and filed with the Clerk by the responding party not more

than eighteen (18) days, plus three (3) days for mailing or electronic service, after the date of

service of the motion.” Local Rule 78-230(m). Defendants have filed a declaration of service 2

that reflects mail service of their motion on January 17, 2006. In accordance with Local Rule 78-

230(m), plaintiff was required to file any opposition to defendants’ motion within eighteen days,

plus three for mail service, after January 17, 2006. Pursuant to the mailbox rule applicable to

prisoner filings, plaintiff was required to deliver his opposition to prison officials for mailing on

or before February 7, 2006. Plaintiff’s opposition is two months overdue.

Plaintiff will be granted eighteen days, plus three for mail service of this order, to

file and serve a declaration under penalty of perjury in which he shows good cause for his failure

to respond to defendants’ motion as required by the November 10, 2005 order and Local Rule

78-230(m). Plaintiff’s declaration must be accompanied by his opposition, or a statement of nonopposition, to defendants’ motion to dismiss. Because plaintiff has had more than two and a half

months to prepare opposition, no extension of time will be granted absent extraordinary

circumstances. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this order in a timely manner will result in a

recommendation that the district judge dismiss this action with prejudice on the basis of

plaintiff’s failure to comply with court orders and applicable rules. See Local Rule 11-110.

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01086-MCE -DAD Document 17 Filed 04/07/06 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

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff shall file and serve, within twenty-one days after the date on which

this order is signed, a declaration under penalty of perjury in which plaintiff shows good cause

for his failure to respond to defendants’ motion to dismiss; plaintiff’s declaration must be

accompanied by his opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss;

2. If plaintiff files opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss, defendants’ reply

shall be filed and served in accordance with Local Rule 78-230(m); and

3. Plaintiff’s failure to file a timely response to this order will result in a

recommendation that the district judge dismiss this action with prejudice on the basis of

plaintiff’s failure to comply with multiple court orders and applicable rules.

DATED: April 6, 2006.

DAD:13

brow1086.osc

Case 2:05-cv-01086-MCE -DAD Document 17 Filed 04/07/06 Page 3 of 3