Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01622/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01622-0/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

MARK A. ARNOLD,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-02-1622 FCD GGH P

vs.

WALLY LAFFAYETTE,

Defendant. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendant’s motion for summary judgment filed

March 14, 2005.

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to defendant’s motion. In the order directing

service filed April 11, 2003, the court stated that “[i]f plaintiff does not serve and file a written

opposition to the motion or a request to postpone consideration of defendants’ motion, the court

may consider the failure to act as a waiver of opposition to defendant’s motion.” See Local Rule

78-230 (m). Defendant’s notice of motion also directed plaintiff to Local Rule 78-230 for

information regarding summary judgment. In addition, by order filed on April 11, 2005, plaintiff

was reminded, inter alia, that he had not yet filed an opposition to the pending summary

judgment motion, the court therein noting that he had been advised by orders filed on November

Case 2:02-cv-01622-FCD-GGH Document 75 Filed 05/18/05 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

7, 2002 and on April 11, 2003 of the requirements for opposing a summary judgment motion.

A district court may not grant a motion for summary judgment simply because the

nonmoving party does not file opposing material, even if the failure to oppose violates a local

rule. Martinez v. Stanford, 323 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2003); Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 652

(9th Cir. March 9, 1994), citing Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 1993). 

However, when the local rule does not require, but merely permits the court to grant a motion for

summary judgment, the district court has discretion to determine whether noncompliance should

be deemed consent to the motion. Id.

In the instant case, plaintiff has been repeatedly warned that his failure to oppose a

motion for summary judgment may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion. Based on

plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition, the court concludes that plaintiff has consented to

defendant’s motion for summary judgment. In the alternative, the court finds that defendant’s

motion has merit.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant’s March 14,

2005, motion for summary judgment be granted.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 5/17/05 

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

arno1622.46

Case 2:02-cv-01622-FCD-GGH Document 75 Filed 05/18/05 Page 2 of 2