Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00456/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00456-8/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL MANRIQUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

HUCHINS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00456-OWW-SMS PC

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO FILE

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO

COMPEL

(ECF Nos. 49, 50)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

REQUESTING THAT NON-OPPOSED

MOTIONS BE GRANTED AND SANCTIONS

IMPOSED

(ECF No. 59)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Daniel Manriquez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against

Defendants Huchins, Reynoso, Hacker, Roberson, Munoz, Daley, Perez, Paz, Morse, Omos, and

Clausings for violations of the Eighth Amendment.

On January24 and 27, 2011, and February14 and 22, 2011, Plaintiff filed motions to compel. 

Defendants filed oppositions to the motions filed on February 14 and 22, 2011, however failed to

file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motions filed on January 14 and 27, 2011. 

Local Rule 230(l). Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the non-opposed motions be granted and

a request for sanctions on March 22, 2011. It appears that around the time these motions were filed

there were changes in counsel and, since Defendants filed oppositions to two of Plaintiff’s motions

to compel, the failure to oppose or respond to the first two motions was an oversight. Therefore

1

Case 1:09-cv-00456-BAM Document 71 Filed 04/27/11 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

Plaintiff’s motion to have the non-opposed motions granted shall be denied.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants shall file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to Defendants’

motions to compel filed on January 24 and 27, 2011, within thirty (30) days from

the date of service of this order; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for requesting that non-opposed motions be granted and sanctions

imposed is DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 26, 2011 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

cm411 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-00456-BAM Document 71 Filed 04/27/11 Page 2 of 2