Darst

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JAMES CATO, Case No. 2:17-cv-01873-TLN-JDP (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS

CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR

v. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE

TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL RULES

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

RESPONSE DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

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