Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00726/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00726-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Frank Chang
Defendant
John Louis Spears
Plaintiff

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN LOUIS SPEARS,

Plaintiff,

v.

FRANK CHANG,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:22-cv-00726-SKO (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED 

FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO FILE AN 

OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF NONOPPOSITION

Plaintiff John Louis Spears is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On March 4, 2024, Defendant Chang filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

(Doc. 31.) Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition as required by 

this Court’s Local Rules. 

The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, 

“[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may 

be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule 

or within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), any 

opposition “to the granting of [a] 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. A responding party who 

has no opposition to the granting of the motion shall serve and file a statement to that effect ....” 

Case 1:22-cv-00726-KES-SKO Document 32 Filed 04/02/24 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

Because Defendant filed and served his motion on March 4, 2024, any opposition or statement of 

non-opposition by Plaintiff was due to be filed no later than March 25, 2024, plus time for 

mailing. Moreover, Defendant’s motion expressly advised Plaintiff of Local Rule 230(l) and the 

21-day deadline for filing an opposition. (See Doc. 31 at 1-2.) Despite the passage of nearly 30 

days, Plaintiff has failed to file either an opposition or statement of non-opposition to 

Defendant’s motion.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing, within 21 days of 

the date of service of this order, why sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to comply 

with the Local Rules. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file an opposition or 

statement of non-opposition to Defendant’s motion filed March 4, 2024. 

Plaintiff is advised that a failure to respond to this Order will result in a 

recommendation that this action be dismissed for a failure to obey court orders and a 

failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 2, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00726-KES-SKO Document 32 Filed 04/02/24 Page 2 of 2