UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 21, 2012
JOSEPH R. PULLIAM, PLAINTIFF,
M. LOZANO, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS
On July 14, 2011, Defendants Lozano and Mason filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 62.) Plaintiff was required to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion within twenty-one days. Local Rule 230(l). After the Court granted Plaintiff's request for an extension of time, Plaintiff filed opposition. (ECF No. 66.) However, Plaintiff maintains that his opposition was incomplete because he had difficulties obtaining facts and information from Defendants Lozano and Mason and from third-parties. (Id.)
Prior to Defendants Lozano and Mason's motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff had filed a motion for a subpoena duces tecum. (ECF No. 55.) In the interim, the Court partially granted Plaintiff's motion, and the Warden of Kern Valley State Prison was to produce specified information on or around December 7, 2011. (ECF Nos. 68 & 71.) Plaintiff should now be able to file a complete opposition to Defendants Lozano and Mason's motion for summary judgment.
Accordingly, within twenty (21) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to Defendants Lozano and Mason's motion for summary judgment. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to obey the Court's order, and failure to prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.