Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00757/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00757-5/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 

ROBERT H. FISHER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

EDWARD BONNER, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-757-KJM-EFB P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff is a former county inmate proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 28, 2016, defendant Easterling filed a motion for summary 

judgment. ECF No. 41. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to 

defendant’s motion. 

 Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), which applies to defendant’s motion (see ECF No. 14, ¶ 9), 

an “[o]pposition, 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.” Id. 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.” 

 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 

Case 2:14-cv-00757-KJM-EFB Document 43 Filed 01/10/17 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 

2

within the inherent power of the Court.” 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 for summary judgment 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 10, 2017. 

Case 2:14-cv-00757-KJM-EFB Document 43 Filed 01/10/17 Page 2 of 2