Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01247/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01247-4/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Wilfredo Bermudez, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

James Yates, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 1-06-1247-FRZ

ORDER

A review of the record reflects that Defendants’ filed a motion to dismiss on October

8, 2009. Thereafter, the Court issued a Wyatt notice to Plaintiff informing him that he was

required to respond; the response was due on approximately November 27, 2009. Plaintiff

failed to file a response as required. Thereafter, in December of 2009, Defendants filed a

notice that Plaintiff failed to file his required response. On January 6, 2010, Plaintiff filed

a document stating that he has encountered various problems in obtaining the paperwork he

thinks he needs to oppose the motion to dismiss, states that he does not want the case

dismissed, and states that he will file his response as soon as possible. The Court has been

waiting for a response from Plaintiff for many months. Plaintiff has had since October 8,

2009 to attempt to gather materials and file his response. As of the date of this Order

(2/4/10), the Court still has not received a response from Plaintiff; Plaintiff has had nearly

four months to file a response. The Court will not permit this dispositive motion to remain

pending indefinitely as it has already caused many months of delay in this case. This Court,

among many others, voluntarily accepted 15 cases from the Eastern District of California as

part of the effort of the Ninth Circuit to expedite the backlog of cases in the Eastern District

of California. Allowing this dispositive motion to remain pending has already caused many

months of delay in this case, clogs the Court’s already heavy docket, and defeats the purpose

Case 1:06-cv-01247-FRZ Document 24 Filed 02/04/10 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 -

of voluntarily accepting cases from the Eastern District of California. As such, Plaintiff will

have one final opportunity to file his response to the motion to dismiss. IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file his response to the motion to dismiss no later than

February 19, 2010. If Plaintiff fails to file his response by February 19, 2010, the Court

will rule on Defendants’ motion to dismiss without the benefit of Plaintiff’s response

and without further notice to Plaintiff.

DATED this 4 day of February, 2010. th

Case 1:06-cv-01247-FRZ Document 24 Filed 02/04/10 Page 2 of 2