Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01144/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01144-9/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LYRALISA LAVENA STEVENS,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. MARTINEZ,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:21-cv-01144-JLT-SKO (PC) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING 

WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE 

IMPOSED FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE 

TO FILE AN OPPOSITION OR 

STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION

14-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Lyralisa Lavena Stevens is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against Defendants Martinez and Peterson for 

violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 

On September 3, 2024, Defendant Peterson filed a motion to compel discovery responses. 

(Doc. 38.) Although more than 21 days have passed, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or a 

statement of non-opposition to Defendant’s motion. 

I. DISCUSSION

This Court’s Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide 

that a “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court 

may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or 

Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” See Local Rule 110. Further, Local Rule 230(l) 

states: 

Case 1:21-cv-01144-JLT-SKO Document 40 Filed 10/02/24 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

Opposition, if any to the granting of a 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. A responding party who has 

no opposition to the granting of the motion shall serve and file a 

statement to that effect, specifically designating the motion in 

question. Failure of the responding party to file an opposition or 

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.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendant’s pending motion to 

compel was due on or before September 24, 2024, plus time for mailing. Plaintiff has failed to 

timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition, and the time to do so has now passed. 

II. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing, within 14 days of 

the date of service of this order, why sanctions should not be imposed for her failure to comply 

with the Local Rules. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file an opposition or 

statement of non-opposition to Defendant Peterson’s motion filed September 3, 2024. 

Plaintiff is advised that a failure to respond to this Order will result in a 

recommendation that this action be dismissed for a failure to obey court orders and a 

failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 2, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01144-JLT-SKO Document 40 Filed 10/02/24 Page 2 of 2