This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On February 13, 2012, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's first amended complaint, and noticed the motion for hearing on March 21, 2012. Dckt. No. 22.
On February 24, 2012, plaintiff filed a response to the motion, but did not respond to the numerous arguments made in the motion to dismiss. Dckt. No. 23. Defendants argue that therefore the motion to dismiss should be granted. Dckt. No. 24. However, in light of plaintiff's pro se status, plaintiff will be given an opportunity to file a revised opposition addressing the arguments set forth in the motion to dismiss. In that revised opposition, plaintiff shall respond to the specific arguments made in the motion to dismiss.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The March 21, 2012 hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss, Dckt. No. 22, is continued to April 25, 2012.
2. On or before April 11, 2012, plaintiff shall file a revised opposition to the motion in which plaintiff responds to the numerous arguments set forth in the motion to dismiss.
3. Failure of plaintiff to do so may be deemed a statement of non-opposition to the motion, and may result in a recommendation that the motion be granted and/or that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with court orders and this court's Local Rules.
4. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiff's opposition on or before April 18, 2012. 5. The status (pretrial scheduling) conference currently set for May 16, 2012 is continued to July 18, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 24.
6. On or before July 3, 2012, the parties shall file status reports, as provided in the August 1, 2011 order.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...