Daram

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DONALD RAY BOWCUT, No. 2:21-cv-00736-DB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 VASUKI DARAM, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On November 14, 2023, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to 18 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Plaintiff did not oppose the motion. Plaintiff filed two 19 motions requesting appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 49, 50) and the undersigned denied those 20 motions. (ECF No. 51.) Plaintiff then filed an appeal. (ECF No. 53.) Plaintiff also filed a 21 motion to proceed in forma pauperis after being sent the bill for fees by the Ninth Circuit. (ECF 22 No. 56.) The Ninth Circuit dismissed plaintiff’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. (ECF Nos. 57, 23 58.) 24 Local Rule 230(l) provides in part: “Failure of the responding party to file written 25 opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to 26 the granting of the motion . . . .” Id. On November 14, 2023 plaintiff was advised…