Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01849/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01849-10/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

MUHAHID IBN BURNEY III,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1849 FCD EFB P

vs.

JEAN WOODFORD, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

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

U.S.C. § 1983. On February 11, 2008, defendants Grant, Haythorne, Kernan and Woodford filed

a motion for summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or

a statement of no opposition. 

In cases in which one party is incarcerated and proceeding without counsel, motions

ordinarily are submitted on the record without oral argument. Local Rule 78-230(m). 

“Opposition, if any, to the granting of the motion shall be served and filed with the Clerk by the

responding party not more than eighteen (18) days, plus three (3) days for mailing or electronic

service, after the date of service of the motion.” Id. 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.” Id. Furthermore, a

Case 2:05-cv-01849-KJM-EFB Document 34 Filed 04/11/08 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

party’s 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.” 

Local Rule 11-110. The court may recommend that an action be dismissed with or without

prejudice, as appropriate, if a party disobeys an order or the Local Rules. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

963 F.2d 1258, 1252 (9th Cir. 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 27, 2006, the court advised plaintiff of the requirements for filing an

opposition to a motion for summary judgment, that failure to oppose such a motion may be

deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion, and that failure to comply with the Local Rules

may result in a recommendation of dismissal. On that date, the Clerk also mailed to plaintiff a

copy of the Local Rules.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, within 20 days of the date of this order,

plaintiff shall file either an opposition to the motion for summary judgment or a statement of no

opposition. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be

dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

DATED: April 11, 2008.

Case 2:05-cv-01849-KJM-EFB Document 34 Filed 04/11/08 Page 2 of 2