Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01236/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01236-10/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Daniel Trujillo,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

James Yates, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 1-07-01236-JMR

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #25)

filed March 5, 2009. Plaintiff has not filed a responsive memorandum in opposition as

required by Rules 78-230(m) and 56-260 of the Local Rules of the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of California (“Local Rules”) and Rule 56(e)(2) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons stated below, Defendants’ Motion for Summary

Judgment (Doc. #25) is granted.

I. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

A. Plaintiff’s Failure to Respond

Defendants moved for summary judgment on March 5, 2009. Per LR 78-230(m),

Plaintiff had “eighteen (18) days, plus three (3) days for mailing or electronic service,” after

being served with Defendants’ motion within which to serve and file opposition to the

granting of Defendants’ motion. Plaintiff has failed to file a responsive memorandum in

Case 1:07-cv-01236-JMR Document 29 Filed 03/23/10 Page 1 of 4
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 -

opposition. Local Rule 78-230(m) states:

A responding party who has no opposition to the granting of the motion shall

serve and file a statement to that effect, specifically designating the motion in

question. Failure of the responding party to file 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.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s failure to serve and file a responsive memorandum is treated as a

consent to the granting of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

All parties, including Plaintiff, must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

and the Local Rules. Local Rules 78-230(m) and 56-260 clearly set forth the requirements

and allotted time periods for filing motions for summary judgment and responsive

memoranda. The Rules also clearly state the effect of non-compliance with those

requirements and time periods. In addition to the general requirement that all parties comply

with the Local Rules, throughout this litigation Plaintiff has been given specific notice of his

responsibility to adhere to the Local Rules and adequate notice of the requirements and

consequences of a motion for summary judgment. The Court’s Second Informational Order

(Doc. #12), filed September 10, 2007, explained the function and purpose of a motion for

summary judgment and advised Plaintiff, pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th

Cir. 1998), of the requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment. The order

warned that if Plaintiff failed to contradict Defendants’ motion with affidavits, declarations,

or other evidence, Defendants’ evidence would be taken as truth, and final judgment may be

entered without a full trial pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e). The order also explained:

If plaintiff does not serve and file a request to postpone consideration of

defendant(s)’ motion or written opposition to the motion, the court may

consider plaintiff’s failure to act as a waiver of opposition to defendant(s)’

motion. Plaintiff’s waiver of opposition to defendant(s)’ motion may result in

the entry of summary judgment against plaintiff.

On March 12, 2009 Plaintiff was informed that Defendants had filed a motion for

summary judgment and was notified of the requirements and consequences of a motion for

summary judgment as required by Rand. (See Order, Doc. #26.) Plaintiff was informed of

the requirements of FED.R.CIV.P. 56 and Local Rules 78-230(m) and 56-260. Plaintiff was

instructed to file a response by April 10, 2009. Plaintiff failed to do so. On August 21, 2009

Case 1:07-cv-01236-JMR Document 29 Filed 03/23/10 Page 2 of 4
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

- 3 -

Plaintiff was again informed of Defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment and was

instructed to file a response by September 30, 2009 or show cause for the delay. (See Order,

Doc. #27.) Despite the warning that a failure to respond could result in Defendants’ evidence

being taken as true and judgment entered against the Plaintiff, Plaintiff did not file a

response. On October 20, 2009, Plaintiff was once again informed of Defendants’ pending

motion for summary judgment and was instructed to file a response by November 27, 2009.

(See Order, Doc. #28.) Plaintiff has yet to file a responsive pleading or any communication

whatsoever. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s failure to file a responsive pleading and noncompliance with the Local Rules and court orders are treated as a consent to the granting of

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

B. FED. R. CIV. P. 56 and Entry of Summary Judgment on the Merits

Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states:

When a motion for summary judgment is properly made and supported, an

opposing party may not rely merely on allegations or denials in its own

pleading; rather, its response must–by affidavits or as otherwise provided in

this rule–set out specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. If the

opposing party does not so respond, summary judgment should, if appropriate,

be entered against that party.

FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e)(2). Because Plaintiff has not responded to Defendants’ motion, the

Court looks to whether summary judgement is appropriate.

Summary judgment “should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure

materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact

and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). A

genuine issue exists if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for

the nonmoving party,” and material facts are those “that might affect the outcome of the suit

under the governing law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A

fact is “material” if, under the applicable substantive law, it is “essential to the proper

disposition of the claim.” Id. An issue of fact is “genuine” if “there is sufficient evidence

on each side so that a rational trier of fact could resolve the issue either way.” Id. Initially,

the burden rests upon the moving party to demonstrate that there is no genuine issue as to any

Case 1:07-cv-01236-JMR Document 29 Filed 03/23/10 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

material fact, and once this initial burden is met, it is then the opposing party’s burden to

“demonstrate through production of probative evidence that an issue of fact remains to be

tried.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). A court deciding a motion

for summary judgment must view all evidentiary inferences in the light most favorable to the

non-moving party. King County v. Rasmussen, 299 F.3d 1077, 1083 (9th Cir. 2002). If

significant factual issues remain, the motion should be denied. United States v. Carter, 906

F.2d 1375, 1377 (9th Cir. 1990).

After reviewing the pleadings, Defendants’ unopposed motion, and all the evidence

submitted in support of Defendants’ motion, the Court is satisfied that no genuine issue of

material fact remains and that Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Pursuant to Rule 56(e)(2), because Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendants’ motion and

because the entry of summary judgment is appropriate based on the pleadings and the

evidence in the summary judgment record, Defendants’ motion is granted.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

(Doc. #25) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to issue judgment

accordingly and close this case.

DATED this 23rd day of March, 2010.

Case 1:07-cv-01236-JMR Document 29 Filed 03/23/10 Page 4 of 4