UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 18, 2011
J. W. FAIRMAN, JR., ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION REGARDING DISCOVERY (DOC. 155) ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE OPPOSITION OR NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. 103) RESPONSE DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS
Plaintiff Jason Saunders ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against Defendants Forener, Gonzales, Johnson, Masiel, Nelson, Smith, and Snell for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment, promulgation or implementation of an unconstitutional policy, and state law claims. On July 6, 2011, the Court granted in part Plaintiff's motion to compel. Doc. 151. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion filed August 12, 2011. Doc. 155.
I. Plaintiff's Motion Regarding Discovery
Plaintiff contends that Defendants have not complied with the Court's July 6, 2011 order. On September 14, 2011, the Court ordered Defendants to file a response. On September 28, 2011, Defendants filed their response. Docs. 158, 159. Defendants contend that they fully complied with the Court's order. Defendants filed as exhibits their responses and a declaration from Defendants' counsel, who declared that he served Plaintiff with the responses on August 5, 2011. No reply was timely filed. L.R. 230(l).
The Court finds that Defendants have complied with the Court's order granting Plaintiff's motion to compel in part. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion regarding discovery, filed August 12, 2011, is DENIED as moot.
II. Opposition To Summary Judgment
On July 10, 2009, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Doc. 103. The Court deferred considering the motion until discovery could be conducted, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), formerly Rule 56(f). Order, Doc. 121. The discovery in this matter is now concluded.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff is to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order. Failure to timely comply or otherwise respond will be construed as a waiver of the opportunity to file an opposition.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.