(PC) Head v. County of Sacramento ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES HEAD, No. 2:19-cv-1663 TLN KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a federal prisoner, proceeding pro se, with this civil action. On March 10, 18 2023, defendants Shelton and Endrizzi filed motions for summary judgment pursuant to Federal 19 Rule of Civil Procedure 56.1 On April 10, 2023, the undersigned directed the moving defendants’ 20 counsel to re-serve plaintiff at his new address of record, and plaintiff was granted 45 days from 21 the date of the order to file oppositions to the pending motions. (ECF No. 133.) The motions 22 were re-served on April 11, 2023, and April 12, 2023. (ECF Nos. 134, 135.) Over 45 days have 23 passed, and plaintiff did not oppose the motions. 24 Local Rule 230(l) provides in part: “Failure of the responding party to file written 25 opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to 26 the granting of the motion . . . .” Id. On March 10, 2023, plaintiff was advised of the 27 1 On June 23, 2020, the district court found that to the extent plaintiff alleged a violation of the 28 Wiretap Act by Sacramento County, Sacramento County is immune from suit. (ECF No. 19.) 1 | requirements for filing an opposition to a motion and that failure to oppose such a motion may be 2 || deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 3 || 1998) (en banc), and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988). 4 Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules “may be grounds for 5 || imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of 6 | the Court.” Id. In the orders filed July 17, 2020, and April 27, 2021, plaintiff was also advised 7 || that failure to comply with the Local Rules may result in a recommendation that the action be 8 | dismissed. (ECF Nos. 24, 65.) 9 Finally, Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: 10 Involuntary Dismissal; Effect. If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to 11 dismiss the action or any claim against it. Unless the dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision (b) and any 12 dismissal not under this rule--except one for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join a party under Rule 19--operates as 13 an adjudication on the merits. 14 |) Id. 15 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within thirty days from the date 16 | of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition, if any, to the motions for summary judgment. 17 | Failure to file an opposition will be deemed as consent to have the: (a) action dismissed for lack 18 || of prosecution; and (b) action dismissed based on plaintiffs failure to comply with these rules 19 || and acourt order. Such a failure shall result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed 20 || pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 21 | Dated: June 13, 2023 22 AO Norra 23 KENDALL J. WEA read 1663.nop UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28