Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00640/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00640-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

ROBERT NITZKE,

Plaintiff, CIV S-06-0640 DFL KJM PS

vs.

TRINITY COUNTY BOARD OF

SUPERVISORS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff has not indicated

under which statute he seeks appointment of counsel. Plaintiff is not proceeding in forma

pauperis and there does not appear to be any statute authorizing the appointment of counsel

which would be applicable to the instant matter. Plaintiff’s request will therefore be denied.

Plaintiff has requested that the court combine his two pending civil actions. 

Consolidation is not warranted and both civil matters are already assigned to the same magistrate

judge. Plaintiff’s request will therefore be denied.

Calendared for hearing on February 21, 2007 is defendants’ motion to dismiss. 

No opposition to the motion has been filed. 

/////

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00640-RRB -KJM Document 34 Filed 02/16/07 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

Local Rule 78-230(c) provides that opposition to the granting of a motion must be

filed fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date. The Rule further provides that “[n]o

party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments if written opposition

to the motion has not been timely filed by that party.” In addition, Local Rule 78-230(j)

provides that failure to appear may be deemed withdrawal of opposition to the motion or may

result in sanctions. Finally, Local Rule 11-110 provides that failure to comply 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.”

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel is denied.

2. Plaintiff’s request to combine civil actions is denied.

3. The hearing date of February 21, 2007 is vacated. Hearing on defendants’

motion is continued to April 4, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. in courtroom no. 26.

4. Plaintiff shall file opposition, if any, to the motion no later than March 21,

2007. Failure to file opposition and appear at the hearing will be deemed as a statement of nonopposition and shall result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

DATED: February 15, 2007. 

006

nitzke.con

Case 2:06-cv-00640-RRB -KJM Document 34 Filed 02/16/07 Page 2 of 2