(PC) Brown v. Kishbaugh ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARK ANTHONY BROWN, No. 2:21-cv-00149-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 M. KUERSTEN, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 24, 2022, defendants filed a motion to compel plaintiff’s discovery 19 responses. ECF No. 32. Two days later, defendants filed a motion to compel plaintiff to appear 20 for deposition. ECF No. 33. 21 Eastern District of California Local Rule 230(l) provides that a prisoner without counsel 22 must file either an opposition to a motion or a statement of no opposition within 21 days of the 23 date of service of the motion. Twenty-one days from service has elapsed, and plaintiff has not 24 filed an opposition to either of defendants’ motions to compel. In deference to plaintiff’s 25 incarcerated and pro se status, the court will allow plaintiff 21 days from the date of this order to 26 file an opposition or statement of no opposition to the discovery motions filed by defendants 27 (ECF Nos. 32 & 33). “Failure of the responding party to file an opposition or to file a statement 28 of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion and 1 || may result in the imposition of sanctions.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(/). Furthermore, a party’s failure 2 || to comply with any order or with the Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition by the Court of 3 || any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” 4 | E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. The court may recommend that an action be dismissed with or without 5 || prejudice, as appropriate, if a party disobeys an order or the Local Rules. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 6 || 963 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court did not abuse discretion in dismissing pro se 7 || plaintiff's complaint for failing to obey an order to re-file an amended complaint to comply with 8 | Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) 9 || (dismissal for pro se plaintiff's failure to comply with local rule regarding notice of change of 10 || address affirmed). 11 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff file either an opposition or a statement 12 || of no opposition to defendants’ motions to compel within 21 days of the date of this order. 13 || Failure to comply with this order may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the granting of the 14 | motions. 15 16 || Dated: October 12, 2022 22 Lo Ibe DP 17 Puts : Cotetn re. LHEA4 EDMUND F. BRENNAN 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28