(PC) Thomas v. Kern Valley State Prison

E.D. California

(PC) Thomas v. Kern Valley State Prison

DecidedNovember 19, 2024

Docket1:21-cv-01675

StatusUnknown

This text of (PC) Thomas v. Kern Valley State Prison ((PC) Thomas v. Kern Valley State Prison) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(PC) Thomas v. Kern Valley State Prison, (E.D. Cal. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD LEE THOMAS, Case No.: 1:21-cv-01675-JLT-SKO 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING 13 v. WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE 14 KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON, et al., TO FILE AN OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION 15 Defendants. 14-DAY DEADLINE 16 17

18 Plaintiff Richard Lee Thomas is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 19 rights action. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claims 20 against Defendants Peralta and Sandoval and failure to intervene claim against Defendant 21 Melendez. 22 I. INTRODUCTION 23 On May 23, 2024, the Court issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order. (Doc. 28.) 24 On August 14, 2024, the Court granted Defendants’ ex parte application to modify the 25 scheduling order. (Doc. 31.) The deadline for filing a motion challenging the exhaustion of 26 administrative remedies was extended to October 22, 2024. (Id. at 2.) 27 On October 22, 2024, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment for failure to 1 exhaust his administrative remedies. (Doc. 32.) Defendants’ motion included a Rand1 warning 2 (Doc. 32-3), addressing the requirements concerning an opposition to a motion for summary 3 judgment. Although more than 21 days have passed, Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition or 4 statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion. 5 II. DISCUSSION 6 Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in relevant part: 7 Failure to Properly Support of Address a Fact. If a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address 8 another party’s assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the court may: 9 (1) give an opportunity to properly support or address the fact; 10 (2) consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion; 11 (3) grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting 12 materials—including the facts considered undisputed—show that the movant is entitled to it; or 13 (4) issue any other appropriate order. 14 15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). This Court’s Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil 16 Procedure 11, provide that a “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with 17 any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions 18 authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” See Local Rule 110. 19 Further, Local Rule 230(l) states: 20 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 21 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 22 statement to that effect, specifically designating the motion in question. Failure of the responding party to file an opposition or 23 statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion and may result in the 24 imposition of sanctions. 25 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ pending motion 26 for summary judgment was due on or before November 12, 2024, plus time for mailing. Plaintiff 27

1 Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). 1 has failed to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition, and the time to do so has now 2 passed. 3 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 4 Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing, within 14 5 days of the date of service of this order, why sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to 6 comply with the Local Rules. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file an 7 opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment based 8 upon a failure to exhaust administrative remedies filed October 22, 2024. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10

11 Dated: November 19, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD LEE THOMAS, Case No.: 1:21-cv-01675-JLT-SKO 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING 13 v. WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE 14 KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON, et al., TO FILE AN OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION 15 Defendants. 14-DAY DEADLINE 16 17

18 Plaintiff Richard Lee Thomas is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 19 rights action. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claims 20 against Defendants Peralta and Sandoval and failure to intervene claim against Defendant 21 Melendez. 22 I. INTRODUCTION 23 On May 23, 2024, the Court issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order. (Doc. 28.) 24 On August 14, 2024, the Court granted Defendants’ ex parte application to modify the 25 scheduling order. (Doc. 31.) The deadline for filing a motion challenging the exhaustion of 26 administrative remedies was extended to October 22, 2024. (Id. at 2.) 27 On October 22, 2024, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment for failure to 1 exhaust his administrative remedies. (Doc. 32.) Defendants’ motion included a Rand1 warning 2 (Doc. 32-3), addressing the requirements concerning an opposition to a motion for summary 3 judgment. Although more than 21 days have passed, Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition or 4 statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion. 5 II. DISCUSSION 6 Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in relevant part: 7 Failure to Properly Support of Address a Fact. If a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address 8 another party’s assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the court may: 9 (1) give an opportunity to properly support or address the fact; 10 (2) consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion; 11 (3) grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting 12 materials—including the facts considered undisputed—show that the movant is entitled to it; or 13 (4) issue any other appropriate order. 14 15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). This Court’s Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil 16 Procedure 11, provide that a “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with 17 any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions 18 authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” See Local Rule 110. 19 Further, Local Rule 230(l) states: 20 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 21 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 22 statement to that effect, specifically designating the motion in question. Failure of the responding party to file an opposition or 23 statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion and may result in the 24 imposition of sanctions. 25 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ pending motion 26 for summary judgment was due on or before November 12, 2024, plus time for mailing. Plaintiff 27

1 Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). 1 has failed to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition, and the time to do so has now 2 passed. 3 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 4 Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing, within 14 5 days of the date of service of this order, why sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to 6 comply with the Local Rules. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file an 7 opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment based 8 upon a failure to exhaust administrative remedies filed October 22, 2024. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10

11 Dated: November 19, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PC) Thomas v. Kern Valley State Prison, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-thomas-v-kern-valley-state-prison-caed-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack