Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03342/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03342-13/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 

GORDON D. MEADOR, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

M. HAMMER, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:11:cv-3342 LKK AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding with retained counsel who seeks relief in a civil 

rights action. By Order filed on June 17, 2014, hearing on defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment (ECF No. 72) was continued from June 18, 2014 to July 2, 2014 due to plaintiff’s lack 

of compliance with the applicable Local Rules. ECF No. 77. Plaintiff was ordered to provide, no 

later than June 25, 2014: (1) his response to defendants’ statement of undisputed facts, as required 

by L.R. 260(b), and (2) the entirety of any depositions from which excerpted testimony was 

offered in opposition to summary judgment, as required by L.R. 133 (j). Plaintiff was also 

afforded the opportunity to file a Statement of Disputed Facts in compliance with Local Rule 

260(b). 

 On June 25, 2014, plaintiff filed a notice of lodging the deposition transcripts. ECF No. 

78. However, plaintiff has not filed the requisite response to defendants’ statement of undisputed 

Case 2:11-cv-03342-KJM-AC Document 79 Filed 06/26/14 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

facts. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 

1. The hearing on defendants’ motion for summary judgment set for July 2, 2014 is 

hereby VACATED from the court’s calendar; 

2. Plaintiff must file a response to defendants’ statement of undisputed facts in 

compliance with L.R. 260(b) by June 30, 2014; 

3. Plaintiff must also by June 30, 2014 show good cause why sanctions should not be 

imposed upon counsel for failure to comply with the Local Rules and this court’s order. 

4. Upon review of plaintiff’s submissions, the court will either re-set the matter for 

hearing or order the motion submitted on the papers. 

DATED: June 26, 2014 

Case 2:11-cv-03342-KJM-AC Document 79 Filed 06/26/14 Page 2 of 2