(PC) Uriel Garcia v. Powell

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 7, 2025
• Docket: 1:19-cv-01631
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 URIEL GARCIA, Case No.: 1:19-cv-01631-KES-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 v. (Doc. 60) 14 POWELL, et al., ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE 15 Defendants. COURT TO SEND PLAINTIFF A COPY OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY 16 JUDGMENT AS A ONE-TIME COURTESY

17 ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ 18 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHIN TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS 19

20 Plaintiff Uriel Garcia is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 21 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against Defendants Powell, Hurtado, and 22 Ugwueze for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violations of the Eighth 23 Amendment. 24 I. BACKGROUND 25 The Court issued its Discovery and Scheduling Order on September 11, 2023. (Doc. 48.) 26 On July 9, 2024, Defendants filed a request to modify the scheduling order to allow for 27 the completion of Plaintiff’s deposition and to extend the time for filing a dispositive motion. 1 discovery to August 5, 2024, and the deadline for filing a dispositive motion to October 18, 2024. 2 (Doc. 55.) 3 On October 15, 2024, Defendants filed a second request to modify the scheduling order, 4 seeking to extend the deadline for the filing of a dispositive motion. (Doc. 56.) The Court granted 5 the second request and extended the deadline for filing a dispositive motion from October 18, 6 2024, to November 18, 2024. (Doc. 57.) 7 On November 18, 2024, Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 58.) 8 Defendants’ motion included a Rand1 warning (Doc. 58-11), specifically addressing the 9 requirements concerning an opposition to a motion for summary judgment. 10 When Plaintiff failed to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ 11 motion, the Court issued its Order to Show Cause (OSC) in Writing Why Sanctions Should Not 12 Be Imposed for Plaintiff’s Failure to File an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition on 13 December 18, 2024. (Doc. 60.) Plaintiff was directed to respond within 14 days. (Id. at 3.) 14 On January 6, 2025,2 Plaintiff timely responded to the OSC. (Doc. 61.) 15 II. DISCUSSION 16 Plaintiff states he did not receive, and declares he does not recall receiving, Defendants’ 17 motion for summary judgment filed November 18, 2024. (Doc. 61 at 1, 3.) He asks that Defendants’ 18 “reissue” their motion and states he “will respond within the time constraint that the Court order.” 19 (Id. at 1.) Lastly, Plaintiff asks that the Court not sanction him and to send him a copy of 20 Defendants’ motion. (Id. at 2.) 21 The Court accepts Plaintiff’s explanation and will discharge the OSC. It will direct the Clerk 22 of the Court to send Plaintiff a copy of Defendants’ summary judgment motion as a one-time 23 courtesy. Finally, the Court will order Plaintiff to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition 24 to Defendants’ pending summary judgment motion within 21 days. 25 // 26 1 Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). 27 2 Plaintiff’s response and accompanying proof of service are dated January 2, 2025. Because January 1, 2025, was a 1 I. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 2 For the reasons given above, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows: 3 1. The OSC issued December 18, 2024 (Doc. 60) is DISCHARGED; 4 2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff a copy of Defendants’ motion 5 for summary judgment (Doc. 58) as a one-time courtesy; and 6 3. Plaintiff SHALL file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ 7 summary judgment motion within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this order. 8 | IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ January 7, 2025 | hr 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28