(PC) Jackson v. Quick ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 CORNEL JACKSON, Case No. 1:19-cv-01591-JLT-EPG (PC) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF NON- 11 v. OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 12 JASON QUICK, et al., (ECF No. 108) 13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff Cornel Jackson is a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 16 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 7, 2022, Defendants Jayson Quick, 17 Elizabeth Alvarez, Alvaro Rossette, Jim Followill, Lisette Lopez, Dominic Ramos, Hermina 18 Marley, and Carmela Prudente moved for summary judgment respecting Plaintiff’s claims that 19 the Defendants violated Plaintiff’s First and Sixth Amendment rights with respect to Plaintiff’s 20 legal correspondence and for conspiracies to violate such rights, and Defendant Elizabeth Alvarez 21 moved for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Alvarez for violating 22 Plaintiff’s right of access to the courts. (ECF No. 108). 23 Under Local Rule 230(l), Plaintiff’s response was due within twenty-one days after 24 Defendant served him with a copy of the motion. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to 25 the motion for summary judgment, and the time period for him to do so has expired. 26 Local Rule 230(l) provides that the failure “to file an opposition or to file a statement of 27 no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion and may 28 result in the imposition of sanctions.” While a motion for summary judgment cannot be granted 1 | by default, Heinemann v. Satterberg, 731 F.3d 914, 916 (9th Cir. 2013), the Court does have 2 | other options when a party fails to respond. For example, if Plaintiff fails to respond, the Court 3 | may treat the facts asserted by Defendants as “undisputed for purposes of the motion.” Fed. R. 4 | Civ. P. 56(e)(2). 5 Additionally, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), “[i]f the plaintiff fails to 6 || prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the 7 | action or any claim against it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Under this Rule, a court may dismiss an 8 | action sua sponte. Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 9 | 2005). Additionally, the Court has the inherent power to sua sponte dismiss an action for failure 10 | to prosecute. Chambers vy. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991). 11 Given Plaintiff's pro se status, and to ensure that Plaintiff has had a sufficient opportunity 12 | respond to the motion for summary judgment, the Court will grant Plaintiff one final 13 | opportunity to respond. 14 Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 15 1. Plaintiff has until May 31, 2022, to file and serve an opposition or a statement of 16 | non-opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 108). 17 2. If Plaintiff files an opposition, Defendants have fourteen days from the date the 18 | opposition is filed in CM/ECF to file and serve a reply to the opposition. 19 3. Additionally, Plaintiff is reminded that he is required to keep the Court updated as 20 | to his current mailing address. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 | Dated: _ May 11, 2022 [Je hey UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28