Trate

I. BACKGROUND

21 Defendants Trate and Grasley1 filed a motion to dismiss and for summary judgment on 22 April 25, 2023. (ECF No. 25). Their motion included a written warning about failure to respond 23 as required by Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) and included a 24 summary of Local Rule 230, warning that failure to respond may result in imposition of 25 sanctions. (ECF No. 25 at 2–3). Defendant Paltenghi joined their pending motions on May 26,

1 On the Court’s docket, Dr. Grasley’s name appears as “Grassley” because it was spelled that way in the Plaintiff’s complaint. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 25 at 2, n.1), states that the correct spelling is “Grasley.” 2023. (ECF No. 30). Thus, all three Defendants remaining after the Court’s screening order (ECF No. 11) joined in the motion to dismiss and for summary judgment. Plaintiff asked for additional 60 days to respond (ECF No. 28) and the Court granted him the extension. (ECF No. 29). Plaintiff had until July 18, 2023 to respond to the motion to dismiss and for summary judgment, but no response was filed by that date. On August 2, 2023, Defendants filed a…