Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01208/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01208-4/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY JONES,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-1208 DAD P

vs.

MICHAEL MARTEL, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 19, 2010, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. 

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion.

Local Rule 230(l) provides in part: “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 . . . .” On June 15, 2009, plaintiff was advised of the requirements for

filing an opposition to the motion and that failure to oppose such a motion may be deemed a

waiver of opposition to the motion. 

Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply 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.” In the order filed June 15, 2009, plaintiff was advised

Case 2:09-cv-01208-KJM -DAD Document 17 Filed 05/03/10 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

2

that failure to comply with the Local Rules may result in a recommendation that the action be

dismissed.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within thirty days of the

date of this order, plaintiff shall file his opposition, if any, to the defendants’ motion for summary

judgment, filed on March 19, 2010. Failure to file an opposition will be deemed as a statement

of non-opposition and shall result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

DATED: May 3, 2010.

DAD:4

jone1208.noopp

Case 2:09-cv-01208-KJM -DAD Document 17 Filed 05/03/10 Page 2 of 2