Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01302/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01302-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Ellis
Plaintiff
Feinberg
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 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROBERT ELLIS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FEINBERG, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:13-cv-1302-EFB P 

ORDER 

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

U.S.C. § 1983. On July 13, 2015, defendant 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-01302-EFB Document 26 Filed 08/11/15 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 November 15, 2013, 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 this action being dismissed without prejudice. 

DATED: August 11, 2015. 

Case 2:13-cv-01302-EFB Document 26 Filed 08/11/15 Page 2 of 2