Darst

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES CATO, Case No. 2:17-cv-01873-TLN-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS

CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR

13 v. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE

TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL RULES

14 M. DURST, et al., ECF No. 57 15 Defendants.

RESPONSE DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

16 17 On October 6, 2020, defendants Romero and Darst filed a motion to compel plaintiff to 18 provide responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents. ECF No. 57. To 19 date, plaintiff has filed neither an opposition nor a statement of non-opposition to the motion. 20 In cases where a party is incarcerated and proceeding without counsel, a responding party 21 is required to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to a motion not more twenty-one 22 days after the date the motion is served. E.D. Cal. L.R. to Local Rule 230(l). Failure “to file an 23 opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition…