UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 15, 2012
MARY LAHIMORE, ET AL, DEFENDANT(S).
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 42
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint, filed on June 21, 2011 (Doc. 28), against Defendant Guzman arising from her conditions of confinement and his deliberate indifference to her serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment (Doc. 34).
On March 12, 2012, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on Plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (Doc. 42.) As explained in the Court's second informational order, filed on December 27, 2011 (Doc. 37-1), Plaintiff was required to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion within twenty-one days, but has not done so. Local Rule 78-230(m). Plaintiff was warned in the December 27, 2011 order: "[i]f the defendants file a motion to dismiss . . . the plaintiff is required to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion. Local Rule 230(l). If the plaintiff fails to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion, this action may be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute." Doc. 37-1.
Additionally, in light of the recent decision in Woods v. Carey, Nos. 09-15548, 09-16113, 2012 WL 2626912, at *5 (9th Cir. Jul. 6, 2012), Plaintiff was recently provided with "fair notice" of the requirements for opposing a dispositive motion -- both by opposing counsel and court order. (Docs. 60, 61.)
Accordingly, within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the Defendants' motion to dismiss or the case will be dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.