(PC) Head v. County of Sacramento

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJuly 24, 20232:19-cv-01663California890 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CHARLES HEAD, No. 2: 19-cv-1663 TLN KJN P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al, Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding without counsel with a civil action. On March 10, 2023, defendants filed motions for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 129, 130.) Plaintiff did not file oppositions. On July 17, 2020, the court advised plaintiff of the requirements for opposing a motion pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 24.) See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988). On June 13, 2023, plaintiff was ordered to file oppositions or a statement of non- opposition to the pending motions within thirty days. (ECF No. 136.) In that same order, plaintiff was advised of the requirements for filing an opposition to the pending motions and that failure to oppose…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.