Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01323/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01323-10/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARQUIS VERNARD WALKER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1323 WBS EFB P

vs.

T. FELKER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel seeking relief for alleged civil rights violations. 

See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 22, 2009, defendants Dial and Cox filed a motion for

summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or a statement

of no opposition to the motion for summary judgment. 

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 with the Clerk by the responding

party not more than eighteen (18) days, plus three (3) days for mailing or electronic service, after

the date of service of the motion.” Id. A responding party’s failure “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 and may result in the imposition of sanctions.” Id. Furthermore, a party’s failure to

Case 2:07-cv-01323-WBS-EFB Document 65 Filed 02/04/10 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

2

comply with any order or 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.” 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 March 3, 2009, 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 for summary judgment or a statement of no

opposition. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be

dismissed without prejudice. 

DATED: February 4, 2010.

Case 2:07-cv-01323-WBS-EFB Document 65 Filed 02/04/10 Page 2 of 2