Ruiz
(PC) Rodriguez v. Ruiz
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JULIAN RODRIGUEZ, Case No. 2:20-cv-01525-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
MIGUEL RUIZ, et al.,
RESPONSE DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE
Defendants. DAYS 16 On January 19, 2022 and February 2, 2022, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 41, and a motion to dismiss, ECF No. 45, respectively. To date, plaintiff has not filed a response to either.1 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 not more twenty-one days after the date the motion is served. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(l). Failure “to file an opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion and may result in the imposition of sanctions.” Id.