Torcedo

(PC) Diaz v. Torcedo

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 17, 20242:21-cv-00916California994 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 FELIPE POLANCO DIAZ, No. 2:21-cv-0916 DC CSK P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS MARIA TORCEDO, Defendant. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 5, 2024, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff did not file an opposition. On August 28, 2024, the Court advised plaintiff of the requirements for opposing a motion pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc); Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988). On August 28, 2024, plaintiff was ordered to file an opposition or a statement of non- opposition to the pending motion within thirty days. In that same order, plaintiff was advised of the requirements for filing an opposition to the pending motion and that failure to oppose such a motion would be deemed as…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.