Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01120/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01120-8/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

RYAN BIGOSKI ODOM,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. TAYLOR, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-01120-KES-CDB (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 Ryan Bigoski Odom is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action. This action proceeds against Defendants Taylor, Khoo, Attinello, 

Ezenwugo, Mitchell and Singh for violations of the Eighth Amendment. 

I. INTRODUCTION

On August 28, 2024, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment concerning the 

merits of Plaintiff’s claims. (Doc. 42.) Defendants’ motion included a Rand1 warning (Doc. 42-3), 

specifically addressing the requirements concerning an opposition to a motion for summary 

judgment. Despite the passage of more than 21 days, Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition or 

statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion.

//

1 Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Case 1:20-cv-01120-KES-CDB Document 43 Filed 10/03/24 Page 1 of 3
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

II. DISCUSSION

Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure concerns summary judgment. It provides, 

in relevant part:

Failure to Properly Support of Address a Fact. If a party fails to 

properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address 

another party’s assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the court 

may:

(1) give an opportunity to properly support or address the fact;

(2) consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion; 

(3) grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting 

materials—including the facts considered undisputed—show 

that the movant is entitled to it; or

(4) issue any other appropriate order.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). 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: 

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 Defendants’ pending motion for 

summary judgment was due on or before September 18, 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. 

III. 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 

Case 1:20-cv-01120-KES-CDB Document 43 Filed 10/03/24 Page 2 of 3
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

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

statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment filed August 28, 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 3, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-01120-KES-CDB Document 43 Filed 10/03/24 Page 3 of 3