Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01342/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01342-6/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

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

DARRELL JUNIOR LESCALLETT,

Plaintiff,

 v.

R. DIAZ, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:13-cv-01342-LJO-BAM (PC)

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE 

OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF NONOPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(ECF No. 28)

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Darrell Junior Lescallett (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action currently proceeds 

on Plaintiff’s claims for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment against Defendants 

Gipson, Broomfield and Doe Defendants.

On May 17, 2016, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. 

(ECF No. 28.) Plaintiff was provided with notice of the requirements for opposing a motion for 

summary judgment. 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. 

28-3.) Plaintiff’s opposition was due within twenty-one (21) days of service of Defendants’ 

motion. 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. Nor has Plaintiff made any other communications with the Court.

Case 1:13-cv-01342-LJO-BAM Document 32 Filed 06/20/16 Page 1 of 2
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

Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED to file an opposition or a 

statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion within thirty (30) days. Plaintiff is warned 

that the failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this action, with 

prejudice, for failure to prosecute and failure to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 19, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01342-LJO-BAM Document 32 Filed 06/20/16 Page 2 of 2