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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON DONNELL WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0050 DFL JFM P

vs.

MULE CREEK STATE PRISON,

Facility “C” Administration of 

Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 12, 2005, plaintiff filed a letter requesting either copies of

documents filed in this action or a continuance due to an alleged loss of his personal property

during a period when he was housed in administrative segregation at the R. J. Donovan

Correctional Facility. By order filed January 24, 2006, defendants were directed to file a

response. On February 9, 2006, defendants filed a response to plaintiff’s letter in which they

represent that plaintiff’s property was relocated due to plaintiff’s refusal to sign for his property

and that as of February 3, 2006, the property was still missing and plaintiff’s request therefor

“pending resolution.” (Response to Court Order Dated January 24, 2006, at 2.) Neither party has

filed anything further regarding the status of plaintiff’s property. After review of the record

herein, and good cause appearing, plaintiff’s request for copies of documents or a continuance

Case 2:04-cv-00050-DFL -JFM Document 41 Filed 04/26/06 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

2

will be denied without prejudice to its renewal, as appropriate, should plaintiff’s administrative

appeal not result in the return of his personal property.

On March 22, 2006, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Plaintiff has not opposed the motion. 

Local Rule 78-230(m) provides in part: “Failure of the responding party to file

written opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any

opposition to the granting of the motion . . . .” On July 15, 2005, plaintiff was advised of the

requirements for filing an opposition to the motion and that failure to oppose such a motion may

be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion. 

Local Rule 11-110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules “may be

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

inherent power of the Court.” In the order filed July 15, 2005, plaintiff was advised that failure

to comply with the Local Rules may result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s December 12, 2005 request for copies or a continuance is denied

without prejudice; and

2. Within thirty days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition, if

any he has, to the motion for summary judgment or a statement of non-opposition. Failure to

comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

DATED: April 25, 2006.

12

will0050.46osc

Case 2:04-cv-00050-DFL -JFM Document 41 Filed 04/26/06 Page 2 of 2