Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02511/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02511-3/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

FLOYD JOSEPH ESPEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

MULE CREEK STATE PRISON, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-02511 KJM DAD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

I. Motion to Dismiss

On May 11, 2015, defendants filed and served a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 26.)

More than 60 days have passed, and plaintiff has neither filed an opposition nor a 

statement of non-opposition to the pending motion to dismiss.

Pursuant to the Local Rules of this court, failure to timely respond to a motion may be 

deemed a waiver of opposition. See Local Rule 230(l). In addition, Local Rule 110 provides that 

failure to comply with the Local Rules or any order of this court “may be grounds for imposition 

of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” 

Finally, Rule 41(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, authorizes the involuntary dismissal of an 

Case 2:14-cv-02511-KJM-DB Document 30 Filed 07/20/15 Page 1 of 4
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

action due to a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute, or to comply with the Federal Rules or a court 

order. 

The court notes, however, that plaintiff recently filed a notice of change of address with 

this court. (ECF No. 29.) Because it is possible that plaintiff was not served with a copy of the 

defendants’ motion to dismiss, the court will grant plaintiff an extension of time in which to file 

an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to that motion. Plaintiff is cautioned that under 

the Local Rules of this court:

Each . . . pro se party is under a continuing duty to notify the Clerk 

[of the Court] and all other parties of any change of address or 

telephone number of . . . the pro se party. Absent such notice, 

service of documents at the prior address . . . shall be fully 

effective.

Local Rule 182(f). In the future, plaintiff must promptly notify the court and the defendants of 

any change of address, or else the court will assume that all documents have been properly served 

upon him.

II. Request re: Local Rule 230(l)

Defendants have requested that the court find that Local Rule 230(l) no longer applicable 

to this action, on the grounds that plaintiff has been released from state prison and now resides in 

Redding, California.

Local Rule 230(l), entitled “Motions in Prisoner Actions,” provides:

All motions, except motions to dismiss for lack of prosecution, filed 

in actions where one party is incarcerated and proceeding in propria 

persona, shall be submitted upon the record without oral argument 

unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Such motions need not be 

noticed on the motion calendar. 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. 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 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. The moving party may, not more than seven (7) days 

after the opposition has been filed in CM/ECF, serve and file a 

reply to the opposition. All such motions will be deemed submitted 

when the time to reply has expired.

Id. If the court were to grant defendants’ request, those provisions of Local Rule 230 that 

Case 2:14-cv-02511-KJM-DB Document 30 Filed 07/20/15 Page 2 of 4
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

3

ordinarily apply in non-prisoner cases would henceforth apply to this action. In particular, the 

parties would gain the ability to calendar motions for hearing before the undersigned, oppositions 

to such motions would be due fourteen days prior to the hearing date, and replies, if any, would 

be due seven days prior to the hearing date.

Having carefully considered defendants’ request, the court determines it to be meritorious, 

and accordingly, finds that Local Rule 230(l) no longer applies to this action. In so deciding, the 

court recognizes that it may be difficult for plaintiff to travel from Redding to Sacramento for any 

scheduled hearings in this case. Plaintiff is advised that he may appear for hearing by telephone 

by following the undersigned’s Case Management Procedures, a copy of which will be served 

upon him together with this order. Alternately, if plaintiff does not wish to make an appearance 

at hearing (whether in person or by telephone), he may file a notice so indicating with the court.

III. Conclusion

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of the pending motion to dismiss 

(ECF No. 26) on plaintiff.

2. Within 21 days after the filing date of this order, plaintiff shall file and serve an 

opposition, or statement of no opposition, to the pending motion to dismiss. Failure to timely file 

an opposition, or statement of no opposition, will be deemed as plaintiff’s consent to have this

action dismissed for lack of prosecution, and failure to comply with the Local Rules and Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. Said failure shall result in a recommendation that this action be 

dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

3. Defendants’ request for an order finding Local Rule 230(l) no longer applicable to this 

action (ECF No. 23) is granted, except that Local Rule 230(l) shall continue to apply to the 

pending motion to dismiss.

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:14-cv-02511-KJM-DB Document 30 Filed 07/20/15 Page 3 of 4
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

4

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of the undersigned’s Case 

Management Procedures on plaintiff.

Dated: July 17, 2015

DAD:10

espe2511.nooppo+lr230

Case 2:14-cv-02511-KJM-DB Document 30 Filed 07/20/15 Page 4 of 4