Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00543/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00543-6/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

RAY LYNN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0543 LKK GGH P

vs.

ARGO, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Defendants, having filed and re-served a motion for summary judgment, ask that

the pretrial conference be vacated and to be relieved of the obligation to file a pretrial statement. 

Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment, or, for that matter,

a pretrial statement. Court records reflect plaintiff was properly re-served with notice of the

motion and the order granting an extension of time to file opposition at plaintiff’s address of

record. 

Local Rule 78-230(m) provides in part: “Failure of the responding party 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 . . . .” Further, Local Rule 11-110 provides that failure

to comply 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.” 

Case 2:04-cv-00543-LKK -GGH Document 51 Filed 08/16/06 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

2

By order filed December 23, 2004, plaintiff was advised of the requirements for

filing an opposition to a motion for summary judgment under the Local Rules and cautioned that

failure to comply with the Local Rules might result in the imposition of sanctions. Plaintiff is

ordered to show cause why, pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(m), the court should not deem the

failure to file written opposition as a waiver of any opposition to the granting of defendant’s

motion. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ August 10, 2006, request that the pretrial conference date in this

matter be vacated is granted; the parties are relieved of their obligation to file pretrial statements

at this time;

2. In light of defendants’ May 5, 2006, motion for summary judgment, re-served

on June 12, 2006, the trial date in this matter is vacated; both the pretrial conference and trial

dates will be re-set, if appropriate, following resolution of the pending dispositive motion;

3. Plaintiff must show cause, within 30 days, for his failure to file an opposition

to the pending summary judgment motion and show cause why the failure to do so should not be

deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion; failure to comply with this order will result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and/or for his

failure to comply with court orders, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

DATED: 8/16/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:099

lynn0543.osc+

Case 2:04-cv-00543-LKK -GGH Document 51 Filed 08/16/06 Page 2 of 2