Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01675/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01675-6/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD LEE THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:21-cv-01675-JLT-SKO

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE

(Doc. 33)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF 21-DAYS 

WITHIN WHICH TO FILE AN 

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff Richard Lee Thomas is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claims 

against Defendants Peralta and Sandoval and failure to intervene claim against Defendant 

Melendez.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On May 23, 2024, the Court issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order. (Doc. 28.) 

On August 14, 2024, the Court granted Defendants’ ex parte application to modify the 

scheduling order, (Doc. 31), and extended the deadline for filing a motion challenging the 

exhaustion of administrative remedies to October 22, 2024. (Id. at 2.) 

On October 22, 2024, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, contending 

Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. (Doc. 32.) Defendants’ motion included a 

Case 1:21-cv-01675-JLT-SKO Document 36 Filed 12/19/24 Page 1 of 4
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

Rand1 warning (Doc. 32-3), specifically addressing the requirements concerning an opposition to 

a motion for summary judgment. When Plaintiff failed to file an opposition or statement of nonopposition to Defendants’ motion, the Court issued its “Order to Show Cause (OSC) in Writing 

Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed for Plaintiff’s Failure to File an Opposition or Statement 

of Non-Opposition” on November 19, 2024. (Doc. 33.) Plaintiff was directed to respond to the 

OSC within 14 days. (Id. at 3.) 

On December 13, 2024, it came to the Court’s attention that Plaintiff is no longer housed 

at Kern Valley State Prison. The Court issued its “Order Directing Clerk of The Court to Modify 

Plaintiff’s Address of Record and to Re-Serve the Order to Show Cause Issued November 19, 

2024; Order Directing Plaintiff to Respond Within 14 Days.” (Doc. 34.) 

On December 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed an untitled document with the Court, docketed by 

the Clerk of the Court as a response to the OSC. (Doc. 35.) 

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff states he did not know he needed to respond to Defendants’ motion, he is “not 

very adept of [bureaucratic] diplomacy,” he is not a legal professional and is doing his best but 

does not know his “way around lawsuits or how to file motions.” Plaintiff states all he wants “is 

proper justice” and hopes to settle this case quickly.2(Doc. 35.) 

Given Plaintiff’s written response, the Court will discharge the OSC. Although Plaintiff 

does not seek an extension of time within which to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment, he will be granted an additional 21 days within which to do so. 

Plaintiff refers to the merits of his claims in his written response. The Court advises 

Plaintiff those assertions are premature and should be addressed in any future motion for 

summary judgment addressing the merits of his claims against Defendants. Defendants’ pending 

motion contends Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies — it does not involve 

the merits of Plaintiff’s claims and is a proper motion asserting an affirmative defense. Further, 

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

2 Defendants elected not to participate in an early settlement conference. (See Doc. 26.)

Case 1:21-cv-01675-JLT-SKO Document 36 Filed 12/19/24 Page 2 of 4
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

Plaintiff is advised that Defendants’ motion included a Rand warning, (Doc. 32-3), that provides 

Plaintiff with information about what he “must do in order to oppose a motion for summary 

judgment” (id. at 2). 

The Court notes Plaintiff’s original complaint states there is a grievance procedure 

available at his institution, that he filed a grievance, and that the grievance process was 

completed. (See Doc. 1 at 2.) In his first amended complaint, Plaintiff indicated there was an 

administrative remedy process available at his institution, that he filed an appeal or grievance 

concerning all facts contained in his complaint, and that the process was completed. (See Doc. 13 

at 2.) Plaintiff also included the following response: “Grievance was denied & dismissed at first 

level negligently.” (Id.) Plaintiff should review the Rand warning and submit an opposition to 

Defendants’ pending summary judgment motion that includes any evidence (declarations, 

depositions, discovery responses, or documents) demonstrating he exhausted his administrative 

remedies prior to filing suit against the named Defendants. 

It is Plaintiff’s obligation to prosecute this action. Collins v. Pitchess, 641 F.2d 740, 742 

(9th Cir. 1981). And as Plaintiff was advised in the Court’s “First Informational Order In 

Prisoner/Civil Detainee Civil Rights Case,” issued November 19, 2021, he “must comply with 

this Order, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (‘Fed. R. Civ. P.’), and the Local Rules of the 

United States District Court of California (‘Local Rules’), as modified by this Order.” (See Doc. 7 

at 1.) See also Witkin v. Lotersztain, No. 2:19-cv-0406 DJC KJN P, 2024 WL 267855, at *2 (E.D. 

Cal. Jan. 24, 2024) (“Plaintiff is cautioned that as a pro se litigant, it is his responsibility to 

diligently prosecute his case, and he is reminded that failure to do so may result in a 

recommendation that the action be dismissed”). The fact Plaintiff is pro se and proceeding 

without the assistance of counsel does not relieve him of the obligation to prosecute this action. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS as follows:

1. The OSC issued November 19, 2024 (Doc. 33) is DISCHARGED; and

2. Plaintiff SHALL file any opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment 

concerning exhaustion no later than January 7, 2025.

Case 1:21-cv-01675-JLT-SKO Document 36 Filed 12/19/24 Page 3 of 4
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

4

WARNING: Should Plaintiff fail to file an opposition to the motion for summary 

judgment, this Court may recommend this action be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to 

prosecute and failure to comply with Court orders and Local Rules. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 18, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01675-JLT-SKO Document 36 Filed 12/19/24 Page 4 of 4