Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01709/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01709-9/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

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

LEONARD RANSOM, JR., 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

DANNY HERRERA, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:11-cv-01709-LJO-EPG (PC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR COPY OF DEFENDANT 

BRANNUM’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND 

GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME FOR 

PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO 

DEFENDANT BRANNUM’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS

(ECF NO. 50)

Leonard Ransom, Jr. (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. On July 7, 2016, defendant Brannum filed a motion to 

dismiss. (ECF No. 38). On September 1, 2016, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an opposition 

or a statement of non-opposition to defendant Brannum’s motion to dismiss within thirty days 

of the service of the order. (ECF. No. 47). On September 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed a response to 

that order, stating that he never received a copy of defendant Brannum’s motion to dismiss and 

asking for a copy of the motion. (ECF No. 49). On September 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed a 

motion requesting a copy of defendant Brannum’s motion to dismiss. (ECF. No. 50). 

According to Plaintiff’s motion, he never received a copy of defendant Brannum’s motion to 

dismiss. 

Case 1:11-cv-01709-LJO-EPG Document 51 Filed 09/26/16 Page 1 of 2
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

Based on Plaintiff’s uncontroverted assertions, it appears that Plaintiff never received a 

copy of defendant Brannum’s motion to dismiss. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk 

of Court is directed to send Plaintiff a copy of defendant Brannum’s motion to dismiss (ECF 

No. 38). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has thirty days from the date of the service 

of this order to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant Brannum’s 

motion to dismiss. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order the Court will deem the failure to 

respond as a waiver and may recommend that defendant Brannum’s motion to dismiss be 

granted on that basis.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 26, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01709-LJO-EPG Document 51 Filed 09/26/16 Page 2 of 2