(PC) Ruiz v. Clark ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 GEORGE RUIZ, Case No. 1:20-cv-00893-AWI-EPG (PC) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF NON- 11 v. OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 12 KEN CLARK, et al., (ECF Nos. 35) 13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff George Ruiz is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 16 civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 15, 2021, Defendants filed a 17 motion for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff failed to administratively exhaust any claim 18 brought in the complaint. (ECF No. 35). Defendants also filed a notice of request to seal 19 documents, seeking to “to seal Exhibit B to the declarations of J. Mendez and H. Moseley filed in 20 support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Exhaustion) (ECF No. 35).” (ECF No. 21 36). 22 The Court granted permission to seal the exhibits but directed Defendants to file, no later 23 than July 23, 2021, a redacted version of the exhibits, redacting any information revealing 24 personal information about inmates or implicating prison safety and security concerns, but 25 including the date, general subject matter, and any other non-confidential information. (ECF No. 26 37). Plaintiff was ordered to file his opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment 27 within 21 days after Defendants served him with a copy of the exhibits. Defendants filed the 28 redacted exhibits on July 23, 2021. (ECF No. 39). To date, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to 1 | the motion for summary judgment, and the 21-day period for him to do so has expired. 2 Local Rule 230(1) provides that the failure “‘to file an opposition or to file a statement of 3 | no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion and may 4 | result in the imposition of sanctions.” While a motion for summary judgment cannot be granted 5 | by default, Heinemann v. Satterberg, 731 F.3d 914, 916 (9th Cir. 2013), the Court does have 6 | other options when a party fails to respond. For example, if Plaintiff fails to respond, the Court 7 | may treat the facts asserted by Defendants as “undisputed for purposes of the motion.” Fed. R. 8 | Civ. P. 56(e)(2). 9 However, given Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court will not impose any sanctions or treat 10 | the facts asserted by Defendants as undisputed at this time. Rather, to ensure that Plaintiff has had 11 | a sufficient opportunity to respond, the Court will grant Plaintiff additional time to respond. 12 | Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 13 1. Plaintiff has until September 10, 2021, to file and serve an opposition or a 14 | statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, or to request 15 || additional time to do so. 16 2. If Plaintiff files an opposition, Defendants have seven days from the date the 17 | opposition is filed in CM/ECF to file and serve a reply to the opposition. 18 3. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, in ruling on Defendants’ motion for 19 | summary judgment the Court may treat the facts asserted by Defendants in the motion for 20 | summary judgment as undisputed. Alternatively, the Court may recommend that this case be 21 | dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order. 22 73 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ August 23, 2021 [sf Fahey □ 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28