Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02103/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02103-19/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

VINCENTE SOLOMON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

J. NEGRETE, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:10-cv-2103 WBS AC P 

ORDER 

 On July 30, 2013, defendant Tate filed a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 114) 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Plaintiff has not opposed the motion. 

 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 . . . .” By Order (ECF No. 53) filed on October 18, 2011, plaintiff was 

advised of the requirements1

 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. In addition, defendant Tate 

provided the contemporaneous Rand notice (ECF No. 115) required by Woods,2 setting forth the 

requirements to oppose a motion for summary judgment. 

 

1

 Pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), 

cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1035 (1999), and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1988). 

2

 Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2012). 

Case 2:10-cv-02103-WBS-AC Document 120 Filed 10/08/13 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

 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.” In the order filed October 18, 2011, plaintiff was advised that failure to comply with 

the Local Rules may result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed. The Ninth Circuit 

has recently held that a district court is prohibited from granting a summary judgment motion 

solely based on a failure to oppose the motion notwithstanding any local rule suggesting 

otherwise. Heinemann v. Satterberg, No. 12-25404, 2013 WL 5312568, at * 2-*3 (9th Cir. Sept. 

24, 2013). Nevertheless, a “failure to respond to a fact asserted in the motion permits a court to 

‘consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion.’” Id. at *3 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 

56(e)(2)). 

 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within thirty days of the date of 

this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition, if any, to defendant Tate’s motion for summary 

judgment. Failure to file an opposition, properly addressing defendant Tate’s assertions of fact, 

will result in the facts asserted by the motion to be considered by the court as undisputed for 

purposes of adjudicating the motion. 

DATED: October 7, 2013 

AC:009 

solo2103.46.osc 

Case 2:10-cv-02103-WBS-AC Document 120 Filed 10/08/13 Page 2 of 2