Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02788/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02788-1/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 

CHARLES CORTEMANCHE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

B. MERRIWEATHER, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:12-cv-2788 AC P 

ORDER 

 On April 3, 2014, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 56. ECF No. 18. Plaintiff has not opposed the motion. 

 Local Rule 230(l) 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 . . . .” By Order, ECF No. 11, filed on June 27, 2013, plaintiff was 

advised of the requirements for filing an opposition to the motion and that failure to oppose such 

a motion may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 

952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1035 (1999); Klingele v. Eikenberry, 

849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1988). In addition, defendants provided the concurrent Rand notice, ECF 

No. 18-4, required by Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2012), setting forth the 

requirements to oppose a motion for summary judgment. 

 Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules “may be grounds for 

Case 2:12-cv-02788-TLN-AC Document 21 Filed 05/13/14 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

imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of 

the Court.” In the order filed June 27, 2013, plaintiff was advised that failure to comply with the 

Local Rules may result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed. The Ninth Circuit has 

recently held that a district court is prohibited from granting a summary judgment motion solely 

based on a failure to oppose the motion notwithstanding any local rule suggesting otherwise. 

Heinemann v. Satterberg, 731 F. 3d 914, 916 (9th Cir. 2013). Nevertheless, a “failure to respond 

to a fact asserted in the motion permits a court to ‘consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the 

motion.’” Id. at 917 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2)). 

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within thirty days of the date of 

this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition, if any, to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 

Failure to file an opposition, properly addressing defendants’ assertions of fact, will result in the 

facts asserted by the motion to be considered by the court as undisputed for purposes of 

adjudicating the motion. 

DATED: May 13, 2014 

Case 2:12-cv-02788-TLN-AC Document 21 Filed 05/13/14 Page 2 of 2