Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00346/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00346-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

19cv346-MMA (JLB) 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BARRY ERNEST OCHOA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

VON LINTIG, 

Defendant. 

 Case No.: 19cv346-MMA (JLB) 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT 

VON LINTIG’S UNOPPOSED 

MOTION TO DISMISS 

[Doc. No. 20] 

 Plaintiff Barry Ernest Ochoa is a California state prisoner, proceeding pro se in this 

civil rights action. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Von Lintig violated his Eighth 

Amendment right to adequate medical care. See Doc. No. 14. Defendant Von Lintig 

moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 

See Doc. No. 20. To date, Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant’s motion and the time 

in which to do so has expired. See SD CivLR 7.1.e.2. For the reasons set forth below, 

the Court GRANTS Defendant Von Lintig’s unopposed motion to dismiss. 

DISCUSSION

Defendant Von Lintig moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Doc. No. 20. Defendant Von Lintig properly served 

Plaintiff with the motion to dismiss at his current address of record, as reflected by the 

Case 3:19-cv-00346-MMA-JLB Document 23 Filed 02/11/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2 

19cv346-MMA (JLB) 

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

California Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections’ Public Inmate Locator System.1

 

The motion was previously set for hearing on February 3, 2020. As such, Plaintiff’s 

response to the motion was due on or before January 21, 2020. See SD CivLR 7.1.e.2; 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C). To date, Plaintiff has not submitted a response brief, nor has 

he requested an extension of time in which to do so. 

 As set forth in this District’s Civil Local Rules, “[i]f an opposing party fails to file 

the papers in the manner required by Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2, that failure may constitute 

a consent to the granting of a motion or other request for ruling by the court.” SD CivLR 

7.1.f.3.c. The Ninth Circuit has held a district court may properly grant an unopposed 

motion to dismiss pursuant to a local rule where the local rule permits, but does not 

require, the granting of a motion for failure to respond. See generally, Ghazali v. Moran, 

46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). The Court has the option of granting Defendant Von 

Lintig’s motion on the basis of Plaintiffs’ failure to respond, and it chooses to do so. 

CONCLUSION

 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendant Von Lintig’s motion to 

dismiss Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim. Because Von Lintig is the sole defendant, 

the Court DISMISSES this action in its entirety without prejudice. The Court 

DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgement accordingly and close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: February 11, 2020 _______________________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

 United States District Judge 

                                                                

1 See https://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/Details.aspx?ID=AN2773 (last visited 2/11/2020). 

Case 3:19-cv-00346-MMA-JLB Document 23 Filed 02/11/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2