Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01299/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01299-20/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAHN G. THOMPSON, 

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:07-cv-01299-LJO-GSA-PC

ORDER RESPONDING TO REQUEST FOR

CLARIFICATION

(Doc. 79.)

TWENTY DAY DEADLINE TO EITHER:

(1) FILE AMENDED OPPOSITION, OR

(2) DO NOTHING – AND CASE WILL

PROCEED WITH PREVIOUSLYFILED OPPOSITION

On September 4, 2012, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Plaintiff In This Case Is Dumbfound

[sic] of What To Do Now,” expressing indecision about how to respond to the Court’s order of

August 23, 2012. (Doc. 79.) The Court shall endeavor to clarify Plaintiff’s choices in a few words.

The purpose of the Court’s order of August 23, 2012 was to provide Plaintiff with

information about his rights and responsibilities in opposing Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 

Plaintiff is advised to review the order again and decide whether he wishes to file a new opposition

to the motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff has two choices:

(1) File an amended opposition to the motion to dismiss within twenty days from the

date of service of this order, or

(2) Do nothing – and the case will proceed with Plaintiff’s opposition previously filed

on November 21, 2011.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 19, 2012 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01299-LJO-GSA Document 81 Filed 09/19/12 Page 1 of 1