Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ransom v. Duncan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION


February 19, 2010

BRYAN G. RANSOM, PLAINTIFF,
v.
DUNCAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CDCR, JOHN DOES 1-10, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Edward F. Shea United States District Judge

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

Before the Court, without oral argument, is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Ct. Rec. 29), filed on June 22, 2009. On July 15, 2009, the Court advised pro se state prisoner Plaintiff Bryan G. Ransom that he need not respond to the dispositive motion until the Court ruled on Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel. (Ct. Rec. 30.) On August 27, 2009, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel and required Plaintiff to file his response to the dispositive motion no later than September 18, 2009. (Ct. Rec. 33.) On September 21, 2009, Plaintiff requested a twenty-one day response-filing extension. (Ct. Rec. 34.) The Court granted the request, setting an October 30, 2009 filing deadline, and cautioned Plaintiff that no additional extensions would be granted. (Ct. Rec. 35.)

Plaintiff failed to file a response. Pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(m) "[fa]ilure of the responding party to file opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion . . . ." The Court therefore deems Plaintiff's failure to file a response to constitute consent to dismissal of this action. Furthermore, upon review of Defendants' motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to plead facts sufficient to state a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 supervisory claim against Defendant Duncan pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and that Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief is covered by class-action Plata v. Schwarzenegger, No. C-01-1351 (N.D. Cal. filed April 5, 2001).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Ct. Rec. 29) is GRANTED.

2. Judgment is to be entered in Defendants' favor.

3. This file shall be CLOSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and provide a copy to Plaintiff and counsel.

20100219

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.