Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06572/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06572-13/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYNE PARKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

GAIL LEWIS, WARDEN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:02-CV-06572-OWW-LJO-P

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS

TO DISMISS

(Docs. 106 and 120)

Plaintiff Wayne Parks (“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 on plaintiff’s

complaint, filed December 9, 2002, against defendants Klarich, Neubarth, and Young (“defendants”)

for violating the Eighth Amendment with respect to plaintiff’s medical and dental care. On January

5, 2006, pursuant to the unenumerated portion of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b), defendants

Klarich and Neubarth filed a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust. On January 26, 2006,

defendant Young filed a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust. Plaintiff was provided with notice

of the requirements for opposing such motions by both the court and defendants. (Docs. 88, 107,

119.) More than twenty-one days have passed and plaintiff has not filed a response to either motion.

Local Rule 78-230(m).

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall file an

opposition or a statement of non-opposition to defendants Klarich and Neubarth’s

motion to dismiss, and defendant Young’s motion to dismiss; and

Case 1:02-cv-06572-OWW -LJO Document 129 Filed 03/07/06 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

2. If plaintiff fails to file a response to the motions in compliance with this order, this

action will be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to obey a court order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06572-OWW -LJO Document 129 Filed 03/07/06 Page 2 of 2