(PC) Roberson v. T. ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CLARENCE LONELL ROBERSON, Case No. 1:19-cv-01724-DAD-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF NON- 14 L.T., et al., OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHIN 15 Defendant. THIRTY (30) DAYS 16 (ECF No. 56) 17 18 Clarence Lonell Roberson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On October 28, 2021, Defendants K.Q.A. and Gonzalez filed a motion for summary 21 judgment. (ECF No. 56.) Plaintiff was required to file an opposition or statement of non- 22 opposition to the motion within twenty-one days, but did not do so. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(l). 23 Local Rule 230(l) provides that the failure to oppose a motion “may be deemed a waiver 24 of any opposition to the granting of the motion and may result in the imposition of sanctions.” 25 While a motion for summary judgment cannot be granted by default, Heinemann v. Satterberg, 26 731 F.3d 914, 916 (9th Cir. 2013), the Court does have other options when a party fails to 27 respond. For example, if Plaintiff fails to respond, the Court may treat the facts asserted by 28 1 || Defendants as “undisputed for purposes of the motion.” Fed. R. P. 56(e)(2). Alternatively, if 2 | Plaintiff fails to oppose the motion or file a statement of non-opposition, the Court may 3 || recommend that this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court 4 | order. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within thirty days from the date of service 6 of this order, Plaintiff shall file oppositions or statements of non-opposition to Defendants’ 7 motion for summary judgment (see ECF No. 56). 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 Dated: _ December 21, 2021 [spe ey UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28