Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00076/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00076-6/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

ORDER * 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRESNO DIVISION

BRYAN G. RANSOM,

Plaintiff,

v.

DUNCAN, Deputy Director of

CDCR, JOHN DOES 1-10, 

Defendants.

NO. CV-09-0076-EFS (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS

Before the Court, without oral argument, is Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss (Ct. Rec. 29), filed on June 22, 2009. On July 15, 2009, the

Court advised pro se state prisoner Plaintiff Bryan G. Ransom that he

need not respond to the dispositive motion until the Court ruled on

Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. (Ct. Rec. 30.) On August 27,

2009, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel and required

Plaintiff to file his response to the dispositive motion no later than

September 18, 2009. (Ct. Rec. 33.) On September 21, 2009, Plaintiff

requested a twenty-one day response-filing extension. (Ct. Rec. 34.)

The Court granted the request, setting an October 30, 2009 filing

deadline, and cautioned Plaintiff that no additional extensions would be

granted. (Ct. Rec. 35.) 

Case 1:09-cv-00076-EFS Document 36 Filed 02/22/10 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

ORDER * 2

Plaintiff failed to file a response. Pursuant to Local Rule 78-

230(m) “[fa]ilure of the responding party to file opposition or to file

a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to

the granting of the motion . . . .” The Court therefore deems

Plaintiff’s failure to file a response to constitute consent to dismissal

of this action. Furthermore, upon review of Defendants’ motion, the

Court finds that Plaintiff failed to plead facts sufficient to state a

42 U.S.C. § 1983 supervisory claim against Defendant Duncan pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and that Plaintiff’s request for

injunctive relief is covered by class-action Plata v. Schwarzenegger, No.

C-01-1351 (N.D. Cal. filed April 5, 2001). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Ct. Rec. 29) is GRANTED.

2. Judgment is to be entered in Defendants’ favor.

3. This file shall be CLOSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter

this Order and provide a copy to Plaintiff and counsel.

DATED this 19 day of February 2010. th

 S/ Edward F. Shea 

EDWARD F. SHEA

United States District Judge

C:\WINDOWS\Temp\notes101AA1\ED.CA.09.76.dismiss.wpd

Case 1:09-cv-00076-EFS Document 36 Filed 02/22/10 Page 2 of 2