(PC) Garland v. Jones

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 2, 2025
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01494
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHAUN DARNELL GARLAND, No. 2:22-cv-01494-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 GENA JONES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983.1 ECF No. 1. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended 20 Complaint (FAC). ECF No. 30; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiff has not filed an opposition 21 or a statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion. 22 In cases in which one party is incarcerated and proceeding without counsel, motions 23 ordinarily are submitted on the record without oral argument. Local Rule 230(l). “Opposition, if 24 any, to the granting of the motion shall be served and filed by the responding party not more than 25 twenty-one (21), days after the date of service of the motion.” Id. Plaintiff has failed to file any 26 such opposition. A responding party’s failure “to file an opposition or to file a statement of no 27 1 Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status was revoked (ECF No. 26), and he has since paid the 28 filing fee for this action. 1 | opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion and may 2 | result in the imposition of sanctions.” Jd. 3 Furthermore, a party’s failure to comply with any order or with the Local Rules “may be 4 || grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or 5 || within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. The court may recommend that an 6 || action be dismissed with or without prejudice, if appropriate, if a party disobeys an order or the 7 || Local Rules. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court did not 8 | abuse discretion in dismissing pro se plaintiff's complaint for failing to obey an order to re-file an 9 || amended complaint to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 10 | 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for pro se plaintiff's failure to comply with local rule 11 | regarding notice of change of address affirmed). The court will provide plaintiff one additional 12 || opportunity to file either an opposition brief or a statement of no opposition to the pending 13 || motion to dismiss. 14 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, within 21 days of this order, plaintiff shall file 15 || either an opposition to the motion to dismiss or a statement of no opposition. However, plaintiff 16 | is cautioned that the failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this 17 || action be dismissed. Hr /, a Ps 19 || Dated: December 31, 2024 Zot blltid FelACN EDMUND F. BRENNAN 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28