Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01573/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01573-2/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

 The October 1, 2003 order instructed the Clerk of the Court to serve upon plaintiff a 1

copy of the Local Rules of Court. (Order filed Oct. 1, 2003, at 5.)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RALPH GRANT McHENRY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-1573 DFL DAD P

vs.

DR. VAN C. VONG, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action. Defendant

Pliler was dismissed from this action by order filed September 26, 2003, and defendant Vong

was dismissed by order filed June 10, 2004. Defendant Brown, the sole remaining defendant, has

filed a timely motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. Plaintiff has not responded to the motion.

The court’s order filed October 1, 2003, provides that all motions for summary

judgment “shall be briefed pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(m)” and that “[f]ailure to oppose such

a motion timely may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion.” (Order filed Oct. 1, 2003,

at 3. ) The order provides extensive information about the requirements for opposing a motion 1

Case 2:03-cv-01573-DFL-DAD Document 60 Filed 05/02/06 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

2

for summary judgment made by defendants pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure. (Id. at 4-5.)

Local Rule 78-230(m) provides that any opposition to the granting of a motion

filed in a prisoner case “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.” Local Rule 78-230(m). Defendant Brown’s motion for summary

judgment includes a declaration of service that reflects mail service of the motion on March 24,

2006. In accordance with Local Rule 78- 230(m), plaintiff was required to file any opposition to

defendant’s motion within eighteen days, plus three for mail service, after March 24, 2006. 

Pursuant to the mailbox rule applicable to prisoner filings, plaintiff was required to deliver his

opposition to prison officials for mailing to the court and defendant’s counsel on or before April

14, 2006. Plaintiff’s opposition is more than two weeks overdue.

Plaintiff will be granted eighteen days, plus three for the mail service of this order,

to file and serve a declaration under penalty of perjury in which he shows good cause for his

failure to respond to defendant Brown’s motion as required by the court’s October 1, 2003 order

and Local Rule 78-230(m). Plaintiff’s declaration must be accompanied by his opposition or a

statement of non-opposition to defendant Brown’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s

failure to respond to this order in a timely manner will result in a recommendation that the

district judge dismiss this action with prejudice on the basis of plaintiff’s failure to comply with

court orders and applicable rules. See Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff shall file and serve, within twenty-one days after the date on which

this order is signed, a declaration under penalty of perjury in which he shows good cause for his

failure to respond to defendant Brown’s motion for summary judgment filed March 24, 2006;

plaintiff’s declaration must be accompanied by his opposition or statement of non-opposition to

defendant’s motion for summary judgment;

Case 2:03-cv-01573-DFL-DAD Document 60 Filed 05/02/06 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

3

2. If plaintiff files opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment,

defendant’s reply shall be filed and served in accordance with Local Rule 78-230(m); and

3. Plaintiff’s failure to file a timely response to this order will result in a

recommendation that the district judge dismiss this action with prejudice on the basis of

plaintiff’s failure to comply with court orders and applicable rules.

DATED: May 2, 2006.

DAD:13

mche1573.osc

Case 2:03-cv-01573-DFL-DAD Document 60 Filed 05/02/06 Page 3 of 3