Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00228/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00228-16/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CURTIS HIGHTOWER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-0228 MCE EFB P

vs.

W. PATTON,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. On February 16, 2012, defendant Patton filed a motion for summary judgment

pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dckt. No. 97. Plaintiff has not

opposed the motion. 

In cases in which one party is incarcerated and proceeding without counsel, motions

ordinarily are submitted on the record without oral argument. Local Rule 230(l). “Opposition, 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.” Id.

////

1

Case 2:08-cv-00228-MCE-EFB Document 106 Filed 04/19/12 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

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

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).

On March 31, 2010, the court advised plaintiff of the requirements for filing an

opposition to the motion, that failure to oppose such a motion may be deemed a waiver of

opposition to the motion, and that failure to comply with the Local Rules may result in a

recommendation of dismissal. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, within twenty-one days of the date of this

order, plaintiff shall either file either an opposition to the motion for summary judgment or a

statement of non-opposition. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation

that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 

DATED: April 19, 2012.

2

Case 2:08-cv-00228-MCE-EFB Document 106 Filed 04/19/12 Page 2 of 2