Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02562/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02562-17/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN R. RODRIGUEZ, JR.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2562 MCE EFB P

vs.

CAL A. TERHUNE, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel suing for alleged civil rights violations. See 42

U.S.C. § 1983. On February 5, 2007, defendants Cano and Castillo filed a motion for summary

judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or a statement of no

opposition to the motion. 

A responding party’s failure “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 and may

result in the imposition of sanctions.” L. R. 78-230(m). Failure to comply with any order or

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.” L. R. 11-110. The court may

recommend this action be dismissed with or without prejudice, as appropriate, if plaintiff

disobeys an order or the Local Rules. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1252 (9th Cir.

Case 2:03-cv-02562-MCE -EFB Document 94 Filed 05/21/07 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

2

1992) (district court did not abuse discretion in dismissing pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing

to obey an order to re-file an amended complaint to comply with Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for pro se

plaintiff’s failure to comply with local rule regarding notice of change of address affirmed).

On January 19, June 10 and August 3, 2005, the court informed plaintiff that all motions

must be briefed in accordance with Local Rule 78-230(m), and that failure timely to oppose a

motion may be deemed consent to the relief requested in the motion. Also on those dates, the

Clerk of the Court served on plaintiff a copy of the Local Rules of this Court. Nevertheless,

plaintiff has not filed an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion for

summary judgment. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within 20 days of the date of this order,

plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment or a statement of nonopposition. Failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

DATED: May 21, 2007.

Case 2:03-cv-02562-MCE -EFB Document 94 Filed 05/21/07 Page 2 of 2