Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01934/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01934-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Renaldo E. Gibson
Plaintiff
Michael McDonald
Defendant

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RENALDO E. GIBSON,

Plaintiff, No. 2:11-cv-1934 EFB P

vs.

MICHAEL MCDONALD,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

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

U.S.C. § 1983. On November 30, 2012, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment and

provided plaintiff with notice of the requirements for opposing such a motion. 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

1

Case 2:11-cv-01934-JAM-EFB Document 21 Filed 01/03/13 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

of sanctions.” Id. Furthermore, a party’s failure to comply with any order or with the Local

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 March 5, 2012, 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: January 3, 2013.

2

Case 2:11-cv-01934-JAM-EFB Document 21 Filed 01/03/13 Page 2 of 2