(PC) Smith v. Miller
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JAMES ANTHONY SMITH, Case No. 2:15-cv-02534-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
SISKIYOU COUNTY JAIL, et al. ECF No. 56 Defendants.
RESPONSE DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE
DAYS 17 On September 3, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s second amended 18 complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). ECF No. 56. To date, plaintiff 19 has not filed an opposition or 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 not more than 21 days after the 22 motion is served. E.D. Cal. L.R. to Local Rule 230(l). Failure “to file an opposition or to file a 23 statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the…