T.
(PC) Roberson v. T.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CLARENCE LONELL ROBERSON, Case No. 1:19-cv-01724-DAD-EPG (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE
OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF NON-
L.T., et al., OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHIN
Defendant. THIRTY (30) DAYS (ECF No. 56) 17 18 Clarence Lonell Roberson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On October 28, 2021, Defendants K.Q.A. and Gonzalez filed a motion for summary 21 judgment. (ECF No. 56.) Plaintiff was required to file an opposition or statement of non- 22 opposition to the motion within twenty-one days, but did not do so. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(l). 23 Local Rule 230(l) provides that the failure to oppose a motion “may be deemed a waiver 24 of any opposition to the granting of the motion and may result in the imposition of sanctions.” While a motion for summary…