Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00458/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00458-16/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Antonio Sharp, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

A.D. Morrison, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 1:07-CV-00458-SMM (PC)

ORDER

 Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on September 24, 2009 (Doc. 51).

Plaintiff has not filed a response to the motion, and the time for doing so has expired. See

Local Rule 230(l). Plaintiff shall file a response to the motion by June 23, 2010. Defendants

shall file a reply by July 2, 2010.

Plaintiff is advised that Defendants’ motion seeks, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, a judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiff’s Eighth

Amendment claim without trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(b). Generally, summary judgment

must be granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact; that is, if there is no real

dispute about any fact that would affect the outcome of the case, the party who moved for

summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will end the case as to

the respective claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). When a defendant files a summary

judgment motion that is properly supported by admissible evidence or sworn testimony

(declarations or affidavits), the plaintiff cannot simply rely on what is alleged in the

complaint. Instead, the plaintiff must set out specific facts in declarations, depositions,

Case 1:07-cv-00458-SMM Document 56 Filed 05/25/10 Page 1 of 3
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 -

answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents that contradict the facts shown in the

defendant’s declarations and evidence and that demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact

for trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(1)-(2). If the plaintiff does not submit evidence in

opposition, summary judgment, if appropriate, should be entered against the plaintiff and in

favor of the defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,

322 (1986) (summary judgment should be granted against a party who “fails to make a

showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and

on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial”); see also Doc. 20 ¶ 5 (second

informational order advising Plaintiff of his summary judgment obligations pursuant to Rand

v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998)).

Plaintiff is further advised that he must become familiar with, and follow, the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court,

Eastern District of California. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro

se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”); Carter v.

Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Although pro se,

[plaintiff] is expected to abide by the rules of the court in which he litigates.”). If Plaintiff

fails to prosecute this action or comply with the rules or any Court order, the Court may

dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and Local Rule 110. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.1992)

(district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the pro se plaintiff’s complaint for

failing to comply with a court order); Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640-43 (9th Cir.

2002) (same); see also Doc. 8 at 1.

Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiff is refusing his mail. Defense counsel filed a 

Declaration stating that on October 21, 2009, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

was returned to his office (Doc. 54). The envelopes containing the document were stamped

“Return to Sender,” and contained handwriting that “Inmate Refused Mail.” (Id.)

Additionally, several of the Court’s Orders have been returned because Plaintiff has refused

them, including Orders dated May 19, 2009 (Doc. 40), September 14, 2009 (Doc. 50), and

Case 1:07-cv-00458-SMM Document 56 Filed 05/25/10 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

November 9, 2009 (Doc. 55). On October 29, 2009, defense counsel spoke with R. Olsen,

the litigation coordinator at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility (Doc. 54). Mr. Olsen

reviewed the departmental computer records and confirmed that inmate Antonio Sharp

(CDCR # V-33163) was still housed there (Id.). Plaintiff is cautioned that continued refusal

to accept defense counsel’s filings and court orders, and thus, to prosecute his case may result

in the dismissal of this action. 

Accordingly, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff shall file a response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc.

51) by June 23, 2010.

2. Defendants shall file a reply by July 2, 2010.

3. Plaintiff is advised that failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal

of the complaint with prejudice.

DATED this 24th day of May, 2010.

Case 1:07-cv-00458-SMM Document 56 Filed 05/25/10 Page 3 of 3