Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00921/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00921-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

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

Plaintiff Archie Cranford is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Individuals detained pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions 

Code § 6600 et seq. are civil detainees and are not prisoners within the meaning of the Prison 

Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(c), Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on January 7, 

2015. Local Rule 302.

On July 29, 2015, Plaintiff was directed to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to 

Defendant’s pending motion to dismiss within thirty days. (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff failed to file an 

opposition or respond to the Court’s order. Therefore, on September 23, 2015, a Findings and 

Recommendation was issued recommending dismissal of the action for failure to comply with a court 

order. (ECF No. 19.) 

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

 Plaintiff,

v.

ANTONIA OKPALA,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00921-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION, AND GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF TWENTY-ONE DAYS TO FILE 

OPPOSITION TO PENDING MOTION TO 

DISMISS OR ACTION WILL BE DISMISSED

[ECF Nos. 19, 20]

Case 1:14-cv-00921-LJO-SAB Document 21 Filed 10/06/15 Page 1 of 2
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

Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. (ECF No. 20.) Plaintiff 

contends he submitted several changes of addresses to the Court; however, to date, the Court has not 

received any change of address in this case from Plaintiff. In addition, although Plaintiff failed 

objections to the dismissal of the action, he has not complied with the Court’s July 29, 2015, order 

directing him to file an opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss. 

The Court will vacate the Findings and Recommendation and grant Plaintiff one additional 

opportunity to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss. 

Local Rule 230(l). Plaintiff is forewarned that failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal 

of the action for failure to comply with a court order. Local Rule 110. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued September 23, 2015, is VACATED; and

2. Within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an 

opposition to statement of non-opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss; and

3. Failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of the action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 5, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00921-LJO-SAB Document 21 Filed 10/06/15 Page 2 of 2