Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02337/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02337-6/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

 Plaintiff also complains that he did not receive a copy of defendants’ second request for 1

extension of time to file their motion for summary judgment until November 3, 2006. The court

granted defendants’ request by order filed October 31, 2006. The court finds no good cause to

revisit that order.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JACK SAMUELS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-2337 GEB JFM P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, ET AL.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

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

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 26, 2007, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On

November 22, 2006, plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion in which he alleges he was unable

to file a substantive response because the motion for summary judgment he received did not

include defendants’ exhibits C through F. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff’s opposition was dated November

12, 2006.1

However, a review of the court docket reflects that on November 17, 2006,

defendants re-served the following documents on plaintiff by mail: motion for summary

judgment; points and authorities in support of the motion for summary judgment; statement of

undisputed facts, including exhibits A-F. (Docket Nos. 30 & 31.) 

Case 2:05-cv-02337-GEB -JFM Document 36 Filed 03/06/07 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

It appears from the court’s docket that plaintiff’s opposition and the certificate of

service attesting to re-service of these documents may have crossed in the mail. (Compare

Docket Nos. 30 & 31 to 32-34.) However, plaintiff has filed no further opposition or request for

extension of time to file further opposition based on the re-service. Because it is not clear

plaintiff has received a complete copy of the defendants’ moving papers, plaintiff will be granted

an additional thirty days in which to file his opposition to the motion for summary judgment. 

Plaintiff is cautioned that Local Rule 78-230(m) 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 . . . .” On January 12, 2006 plaintiff was

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

a motion may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion. 

Local Rule 11-110 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.” In the order filed January 12, 2006, plaintiff was advised that

failure to comply with the Local Rules may result in a recommendation that the action be

dismissed.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, if he is opposed to the

motion for summary judgment, plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motion within thirty days

from the date of this order. Failure to file an opposition will be deemed as a statement of nonopposition and shall result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

DATED: March 5, 2007.

001; samu2337.46o

Case 2:05-cv-02337-GEB -JFM Document 36 Filed 03/06/07 Page 2 of 2