Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00809/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00809-3/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

LAMONT SHEPARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. QUILLEN,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00809-SKO PC

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE

OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF NONOPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION

TO DISMISS

RESPONSE DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS

Plaintiff Lamont Shepard (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 16, 2010, Defendant

Quillen filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim. (Doc.

#13.)

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion to dismiss.

Local Rule 230(l) requires Plaintiff to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to

Defendant’s motion within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of the motion. Instead,

Plaintiff has filed a request for entry of default claiming that Defendant “has failed to answer or

otherwise defend as to Plaintiffs’[sic] complaint”. (Doc. #17.)

Plaintiff is advised that Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss. Thus, Defendant has not

defaulted. It is Plaintiff who has failed to respond to Defendant’s motion. The Court will provide

Plaintiff with thirty (30) days to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to Defendant’s

motion to dismiss.

///

1

Case 1:09-cv-00809-BAM Document 18 Filed 06/22/10 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

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty (30) days of the date of service of

this order, Plaintiff shall file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to Defendant’s motion

to dismiss. Plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition in compliance

with this order may result in this action being dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 22, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-00809-BAM Document 18 Filed 06/22/10 Page 2 of 2