Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01675/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01675-4/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD LEE THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:21-cv-01675-JLT-SKO

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING 

WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE 

IMPOSED FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE 

TO FILE AN OPPOSITION OR 

STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION

14-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Richard Lee Thomas is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claims 

against Defendants Peralta and Sandoval and failure to intervene claim against Defendant 

Melendez.

I. INTRODUCTION

On May 23, 2024, the Court issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order. (Doc. 28.) 

On August 14, 2024, the Court granted Defendants’ ex parte application to modify the 

scheduling order. (Doc. 31.) The deadline for filing a motion challenging the exhaustion of 

administrative remedies was extended to October 22, 2024. (Id. at 2.) 

On October 22, 2024, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment for failure to 

Case 1:21-cv-01675-JLT-SKO Document 33 Filed 11/19/24 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

exhaust his administrative remedies. (Doc. 32.) Defendants’ motion included a Rand1 warning 

(Doc. 32-3), addressing the requirements concerning an opposition to a motion for summary 

judgment. Although more than 21 days have passed, Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition or 

statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion. 

II. DISCUSSION

Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in relevant part:

Failure to Properly Support of Address a Fact. If a party fails to 

properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address 

another party’s assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the court 

may:

(1) give an opportunity to properly support or address the fact;

(2) consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion; 

(3) grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting 

materials—including the facts considered undisputed—show 

that the movant is entitled to it; or

(4) issue any other appropriate order.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). This Court’s Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 11, provide that a “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with 

any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions 

authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” See Local Rule 110. 

Further, Local Rule 230(l) states: 

Opposition, if any to the granting of a 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. A responding party who has 

no opposition to the granting of the motion shall serve and file a 

statement to that effect, specifically designating the motion in 

question. Failure of the responding party to file an opposition or 

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.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ pending motion 

for summary judgment was due on or before November 12, 2024, plus time for mailing. Plaintiff 

1 Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Case 1:21-cv-01675-JLT-SKO Document 33 Filed 11/19/24 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

has failed to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition, and the time to do so has now 

passed. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing, within 14

days of the date of service of this order, why sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to 

comply with the Local Rules. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file an 

opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment based 

upon a failure to exhaust administrative remedies filed October 22, 2024.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 19, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01675-JLT-SKO Document 33 Filed 11/19/24 Page 3 of 3