Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01996/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01996-25/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MELVIN MUNIR,

Plaintiff, No. 2:05-cv-1996 MCE EFB P

vs.

THOMAS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. On December 6, 2012, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and

provided plaintiff with notice of the requirements for opposing such a motion. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 56; Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff has not filed an

opposition or a statement of no opposition to the motion. 

In cases in which one party is incarcerated and proceeding without counsel, motions

ordinarily are submitted on the record without oral argument. E.D. Cal. Local Rules 230(l),

102(d); see also Dckt. No. 17 at 3 (explaining that unless the court orders otherwise, the

provisions of Rule 230(l) remain in effect regardless of plaintiff’s custodial status). 

“Opposition, if any, to the granting of the motion shall be served and filed by the responding

party not more than twenty-one (21), days after the date of service of the motion. ” E.D. Cal.

1

Case 2:05-cv-01996-MCE-EFB Document 76 Filed 01/03/13 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

Local Rule 230(l). A responding party’s failure “to file an opposition or to file a statement of no

opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion and may

result in the imposition of sanctions.” Id. Furthermore, a party’s failure to comply with any

order or with the Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all

sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal.

Local Rule 110. The court may recommend that an action be dismissed with or without

prejudice, as appropriate, if a party disobeys an order or the Local Rules. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

963 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court did not abuse discretion in dismissing pro se

plaintiff’s complaint for failing to obey an order to re-file an amended complaint to comply with

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988)

(dismissal for pro se plaintiff’s failure to comply with local rule regarding notice of change of

address affirmed).

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, within 21 days of the date of this order,

plaintiff shall file either an opposition to the motion or a statement of no opposition. Failure to

comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without

prejudice. 

DATED: January 3, 2013.

2

Case 2:05-cv-01996-MCE-EFB Document 76 Filed 01/03/13 Page 2 of 2