Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01970/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01970-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEE THIEL PAYNE,

Plaintiff, No. 2:11-cv-1970 LKK EFB P

vs.

J. MARTIN, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

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

U.S.C. § 1983. On October 24, 2012, defendant Bax filed a motion to dismiss for failure to

exhaust administrative remedies and informed plaintiff of the requirements for opposing such a

motion See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b); Stratton v. Buck, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 19647, at *7-8 (9th

Cir. Sept. 19, 2012); Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1115, 1120 n.15 (9th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff

has not filed an opposition or otherwise responded to 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 2:11-cv-01970-TLN-EFB Document 32 Filed 11/19/12 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 July 26, 2012, 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 21 days of the date of this order,

plaintiff shall file either an opposition to the motion to dismiss or a statement of no opposition. 

Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed

without prejudice. 

DATED: November 19, 2012.

2

Case 2:11-cv-01970-TLN-EFB Document 32 Filed 11/19/12 Page 2 of 2