Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01198/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01198-3/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY EIDEM,

Plaintiff,

v.

KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-01198-JLT-BAM

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 

DEFENDANT B. GREEN FROM 

PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT BE 

GRANTED

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint against Defendants Barry 

Green, CDCR Officer C. Vang, and DOES 1-15. (Doc. 21.) On September 20, 2024, Defendants

Green and Vang filed a motion to dismiss Defendant B. Green from the Second Amended 

Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. 31.) The motion was 

referred to the undersigned for appropriate action on October 23, 2024 (Doc. 33.) 

Although Plaintiff is now represented by counsel in this action, the Court advised Plaintiff 

of its general practice to continue to apply the motion briefing schedule in Local Rule 230(l) and 

certain other local rules concerning actions in which one party is incarcerated and proceeding in 

propria persona, even in actions where the plaintiff is later represented by counsel. (See Doc. 20 

at 1 n.1.) 

Local Rule 230(l) requires that opposition, if any, to the granting of the motion shall be 

Case 1:23-cv-01198-JLT-BAM Document 34 Filed 11/04/24 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

served and filed by the responding party not more than twenty-one (21) days after the date of 

service of the motion. L.R. 230(l). A responding party who has no opposition to the granting of 

the motion shall serve and file a statement to that effect, specifically designating the motion in 

question. L.R. 230(l). “Failure of the responding party to file an 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. 230(l). Plaintiff’s opposition or non-opposition 

to the motion to dismiss was due no later than October 11, 2024. To date, no opposition has been 

filed. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall show cause by WRITTEN 

RESPONSE within fourteen (14) days of service of this order why the motion to dismiss 

Defendant B. Green from this action should not be granted based on Plaintiff’s failure to file a 

timely opposition. Plaintiff may comply with the Court’s order by filing an opposition or 

statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiff is advised that failure to 

comply with the Court’s order will be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the 

motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 4, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01198-JLT-BAM Document 34 Filed 11/04/24 Page 2 of 2