UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 23, 2012
BRUCE PATRICK HANEY,
ROUCH, ET AL.,
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE
OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS'
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Doc. 31
RESPONSE DUE WITHIN 21 DAYS
On October 16, 2009, Bruce Patrick Haney ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. On February 18, 2011, this Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint or notify the Court of willingness to proceed on his a cognizable claim against Defendants Rouch and Moon ("Defendants") for First Amendment retaliation. Doc. 14. On March 17, 2011, Plaintiff notified the Court of his willingness to proceed on his cognizable claim against Defendants. Doc. 15.
On June 3, 2011, the Court issued a second informational order, advising Plaintiff that Defendants may file a motion for summary judgment and how Plaintiff must oppose the motion in order to avoid dismissal, pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). Doc. 19. On June 13, 2012, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Doc. 31. In order to address the time delay between providing notice and the filing of Defendant's motion, the Court issued an amended second informational order to Plaintiff, in accordance with Woods v. Carey, 2012 WL 2626912, at * 4 (9th Cir. Jul. 6, 2012). As of the date of this order, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or statement of non-opposition as required by Local Rule 230(l).
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 waiver of the opportunity to file an opposition.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.