Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01466/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01466-5/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 

ANTHONY LAWS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

R. OBERT, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-1466-EFB P (TEMP) 

ORDER 

 On October 8, 2015, defendant Obert filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the grounds that plaintiff’s third amended 

complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and the face of the complaint 

shows that plaintiff failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies prior to filing suit as 

required. The court has granted plaintiff two extensions of time to file an opposition to 

defendants’ motion. Most recently, on December 3, 2015, the court ordered plaintiff to file and 

serve his opposition on or before December 29, 2015. To date, plaintiff has not filed his 

opposition. 

 Local Rule 230(l) provides in part: “Failure of the responding party to file written 

opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to 

the granting of the motion . . . .” On May 26, 2015, plaintiff was advised of the requirements 

///// 

Case 2:14-cv-01466-JAM-DB Document 45 Filed 01/28/16 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 

27 

28 

2

for filing an opposition to these kinds of motions and was cautioned that failure to oppose such 

motions may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motions. 

 Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules “may be grounds for 

imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of 

the Court.” In the order filed May 26, 2015, plaintiff was advised that failure to comply with the 

Local Rules may result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within twenty-one days of the date of this 

order, plaintiff shall file an opposition, if any, to defendant’s motion to dismiss. Given the 

previous two extensions, the court is not inclined to extend this time further. Failure to file an 

opposition will be deemed as a statement of non-opposition and shall result in a recommendation 

for dismissal of this action pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

DATED: January 28, 2016. 

Case 2:14-cv-01466-JAM-DB Document 45 Filed 01/28/16 Page 2 of 2