Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01547/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01547-10/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

FRESNO DIVISION

Michael Lenoir Smith, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

Arnold Schwarzeneggar, et al.

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:07-cv-1547 SRB

ORDER

On October 17, 2012, Defendants Yates, Hedgpeth and Allison (Defendants) filed a

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint; Defendants' Request That the Court

Screen Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint. Because the Plaintiff is acting pro se in this

matter, the Court advises the Plaintiff of the following: 

I. RULE 7.2(i) CAUTIONARY NOTICE 

LRCiv 7.2(i) states in relevant part: "[I]f the opposing party does not serve and file the

required answering memoranda . . . such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the

denial or granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily." See

D.Ariz. R. 1.10(i); see also Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 652 (9th Cir. 1994). Plaintiff

should take notice that failure to respond to the Defendants' Motion by the deadline set forth

in this Order will result in the Court deeming the Defendants' Motion as being unopposed and

consented to by the Plaintiff. See Brydges, 18 F.3d at 652 (affirming the district court's

Case 1:07-cv-01547-SRB Document 61 Filed 10/17/12 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 -

summary granting of a motion for summary judgment under Local Rule 7.2(i) when

non-moving party was given express warning of consequences of failing to respond). 

It is the Plaintiff's obligation to timely respond to all motions. The Defendants'

Motion will be summarily granted if Plaintiff fails to respond in accordance with the

provisions of this Order.

II. RULE 41 CAUTIONARY NOTICE

The Plaintiff should also take notice that if he fails to timely comply with every

provision of this Order, or any other order of the Court entered in this matter, his Complaint

and this action may also be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that the

district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the court), cert

denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992). Therefore, the Plaintiff is warned that failure to strictly

adhere to the provisions of this or any other Court Order will result in dismissal of the

Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Rule 41. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file with the Clerk of the Court and serve on

opposing counsel a responsive memorandum to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's

Third Amended Complaint no later than November 5, 2012.

DATED this 17th day of October, 2012.

Case 1:07-cv-01547-SRB Document 61 Filed 10/17/12 Page 2 of 2