Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02431/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02431-3/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHAEL J. PHILLIPS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DOCTOR NEWMAN, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-2431-EFB P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. On October 17, 2014, defendants Newman and Renolo filed a motion for 

summary judgment and informed plaintiff of the requirements for opposing a motion for 

summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 

1998). Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or a statement of no opposition to the motion. 

 In cases in which one party is incarcerated and proceeding without counsel, motions 

ordinarily are submitted on the record without oral argument. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(l). 

“Opposition, if any, to the granting of the motion shall be served and filed by the responding 

party not more than twenty-one (21), days after the date of service of the motion. ” Id. A 

responding party’s failure “to file an 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.” Id. Furthermore, a party’s failure to comply with any order or with the Local 

Case 2:13-cv-02431-EFB Document 22 Filed 12/02/14 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

Rules “may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute 

or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. The court may 

recommend that an action be dismissed with or without prejudice, as appropriate, if a party 

disobeys an order or the Local Rules. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 

1992) (district court did not abuse discretion in dismissing pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing 

to obey an order to re-file an amended complaint to comply with Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for pro se 

plaintiff’s failure to comply with local rule regarding notice of change of address affirmed). 

 On February 21, 2014, the court advised plaintiff of the requirements for filing an 

opposition to the motion, that failure to oppose such a motion may be deemed a waiver of 

opposition to the motion and that failure to comply with the Local Rules may result in dismissal. 

 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, within 21 days of the date of this order, 

plaintiff shall file either an opposition to the motion or a statement of no opposition. Failure to 

comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without 

prejudice. 

DATED: December 2, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-02431-EFB Document 22 Filed 12/02/14 Page 2 of 2