Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01343/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01343-10/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANK MONACO BAZZO,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. GATES,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:21-cv-01343-ADA-CDB (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE 

IMPOSED FOR DEFENDANTS’ 

FAILURE TO FILE AN OPPOSITION 

OR STATEMENT OF 

NON-OPPOSITION

(Doc. 54)

Plaintiff Frank Monaco Bazzo is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On December 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion and 

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Notice of Motion and Motion for Permanent Injuction 

[sic] Relief.”1(Doc. 54.) 

The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, 

“[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 

1 Plaintiff’s filing reflects a purported hearing date and time of January 7, 2024 (a Sunday) at 10:00 a.m. 

(Doc. 54.) However, pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), all motions in prisoner actions “shall be submitted 

upon the record without oral argument unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Such motions need not be 

noticed on the motion calendar.” Plaintiff’s motion(s) will be decided without a hearing. 

Case 1:21-cv-01343-KES-CDB Document 55 Filed 01/05/24 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

or within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), any 

opposition “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 ....” 

Because Plaintiff filed and served his motion on December 11, 2023, any opposition or statement 

of non-opposition by Defendants was due to be filed no later than January 2, 2024.2 Despite the 

passage of more than 21 days, Defendants have failed to file either an opposition or statement of 

non-opposition to Plaintiff’s motion.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Defendants to show cause in writing, within 7 days of 

the date of service of this order, why sanctions should not be imposed for their failure to comply 

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

statement of non-opposition to Plaintiff’s motions filed December 11, 2023. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2 Because the twenty-first day fell on the legal holiday of January 1, 2024, the filing became due the next 

business day.

Case 1:21-cv-01343-KES-CDB Document 55 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 2