(PC) Huffman v. Batra

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WILLIAM RAY HUFFMAN, Case No. 1:19-cv-00655-DAD-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS 13 v. TO DISMISS BATRA, et al., (ECF Nos. 30, 31) 15 Defendants. TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE 17 Plaintiff William Ray Huffman (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Individuals detained pursuant to the California Welfare and Institutions Code § 6600 et seq. are considered civil detainees and are not prisoners within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000). This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendants Batra, Withrow, and Hamerick for denial of medical care in violation of the substantive component of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

24 On October 13, 2020, Defendants Hamerick and Withrow filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that this action is barred by the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata. (ECF No. 30.) On November 6, 2020 Defendant Batra filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the same basis. (ECF No. 31.) Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants Hamerick and Withrow’s motion to dismiss was due on or before November 6, 2020, and Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant Batra’s motion to dismiss was due on or before November 30, 2020. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to either motion to dismiss. Aside from Plaintiff’s motion for counsel, filed November 18, 2020, Plaintiff has not otherwise communicated with the Court regarding this action, and has provided no indication that he intends to respond to the pending motions to dismiss. (See ECF No. 32.)

6 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. Plaintiff’s opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants Hamerick and 8 Withrow’s motion to dismiss, (ECF No. 30), is due within twenty-one (21) days from the 9 date of service of this order; 10 2. Plaintiff’s opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendant Batra’s motion to 11 dismiss, (ECF No. 31), is due within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this 12 order; 13 3. Defendants’ replies, if any, shall be filed within seven (7) days from the date of docketing 14 of Plaintiff’s opposition(s); and 15 4. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendants’ motions to dismiss in compliance with 16 this order will result in dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to 17 prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20 Dated: December 11, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE