Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01621/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01621-16/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Leroy Manning is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case currently proceeds against Defendant Kelly on Plaintiff’s 

claim of deliberate indifference to serous medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. This 

matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(1)(B) and Local 

Rule 302. 

On December 9, 2016, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. 

(ECF No. 79.) Plaintiff was provided with notice of the requirements for opposing that motion. Woods 

v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir.2012); Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir.1988); Klingele 

v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411–12 (9th Cir.1988). (ECF No. 79-1.) Plaintiff’s opposition was due 

within twenty-one (21) days of service of Defendant’s motion. 

LEROY MANNING,

 Plaintiff,

v.

JULIE KELLY,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01621-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S RECENT 

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS AND 

FAILURE TO FILE OPPOSITION OR 

STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

(ECF Nos. 79, 82)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Case 1:12-cv-01621-LJO-SAB Document 84 Filed 01/11/17 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

More than thirty (30) days have passed since the motion for summary judgment was filed and 

served, but Plaintiff has not filed any opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion. 

However, on January 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address with the Court. (ECF No. 

82.) Based upon Plaintiff’s indication that he has recently changed his address, it is possible that his 

response was delayed due to a delayed receipt of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. That 

motion was served on Plaintiff at his former address of record, according to the attached declaration of 

service. (Declaration of Service, ECF No. 79, p. 3.) 

Accordingly, in an abundance of caution, the Court will sua sponte grant Plaintiff a brief 

extension of time to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendant’s motion for 

summary judgment. Plaintiff is reminded that pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), the failure of the 

responding party 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.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED to file an opposition or a 

statement of non-opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, within thirty (30) days.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2017 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01621-LJO-SAB Document 84 Filed 01/11/17 Page 2 of 2