Joshua Johan Molina v. Adams

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: September 15, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00019
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSHUA JOHAN MOLINA, Case No.: 1:24-cv-00019-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE 13 v. IMPOSED FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO FILE AN OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF 14 ADAMS, NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 15 Defendant. (Doc. 34) 16 14-DAY DEADLINE 17 18 Plaintiff Joshua Johan Molina is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 19 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment 20 excessive force claim against Defendant Adams. (Docs. 1, 10). 21 I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 22 The Court issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order on July 8, 2024. (Doc. 22). On May 23 19, 2025, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a 24 claim. (Doc. 34). Defendant’s motion included a Rand1 warning, specifically addressing the 25 requirements concerning an opposition to a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 34-5). On May 26 23, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time within which to file a motion for 27

1 Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). 1 reconsideration regarding the Court’s prior order denying his motion to compel. (Doc. 40). On May 2 28, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time thereto, as modified. (Doc. 41). 3 On July 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed his motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 42). On July 11, 2025, 4 Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to respond to Defendant’s motion for summary 5 judgment. (Doc. 43). That same day, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendant’s separate statement of 6 undisputed facts accompanying the motion for summary judgment, but did not otherwise respond 7 to the motion. (Doc. 44). On July 17, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for extension of 8 time, extending until September 1, 2025, the time within which Plaintiff was required to file his 9 response to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 45). 10 The deadline by which Plaintiff was required to respond to Defendant’s motion for 11 summary judgment has passed and Plaintiff has not filed any response, sought an extension, or 12 otherwise explained the delinquency. 13 II. DISCUSSION 14 Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure concerns summary judgment. It provides, 15 in relevant part: 16 Failing to Properly Support or Address a Fact. If a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address 17 another party’s assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the court may: 18 (1) give an opportunity to properly support or address the fact; 19 (2) consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion; 20 (3) grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting 21 materials—including the facts considered undisputed—show that the movant is entitled to it; or 22 (4) issue any other appropriate order. 23 24 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). This Court’s Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25 11, provide that a “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order 26 of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by 27 statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” See Local Rule 110. Further, Local Rule 1 Opposition, if any to the granting of a motion shall be served and filed by the responding party not more than twenty-one (21) days 2 after the date of service of the motion. A responding party who has no opposition to the granting of the motion shall serve and file a 3 statement to that effect, specifically designating the motion in question. Failure of the responding party to file an opposition or 4 statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion and may result in the 5 imposition of sanctions. 6 | Local Rule 230(1). Therefore, Plaintiffs opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendant’s 7 pending motion for summary judgment was due on or before September 2, 2025, plus time for 8 mailing (September 1, 2025, falls on a public holiday). Plaintiff has failed to timely file an 9 opposition or statement of non-opposition, and the time to do so has now passed. 10 Ill. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 11 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing, within 14 12 days of the date of service of this Order, why sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to 13 comply with the Local Rules. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file an opposition 14 | or statement of non-opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment filed May 19, 2025 IS | (Doe. 34). 16 Any failure by Plaintiff to respond to this Order may result in dismissal of this action 17 | for failure to obey court orders and failure to prosecute. 18 | Ir IS SO ORDERED. 19 ) Bo Dated: _ September 15, 2025 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28