(PC) Roberson v. T.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CLARENCE LONELL ROBERSON, Case No. 1:19-cv-01724-DAD-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF NON- L.T., et al., OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHIN 15 Defendant. THIRTY (30) DAYS 16 (ECF No. 56) Clarence Lonell Roberson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On October 28, 2021, Defendants K.Q.A. and Gonzalez filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 56.) Plaintiff was required to file an opposition or statement of non- opposition to the motion within twenty-one days, but did not do so. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(l).

Local Rule 230(l) provides that the failure to oppose a motion “may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion and may result in the imposition of sanctions.”

25 While a motion for summary judgment cannot be granted by default, Heinemann v. Satterberg, 731 F.3d 914, 916 (9th Cir. 2013), the Court does have other options when a party fails to respond. For example, if Plaintiff fails to respond, the Court may treat the facts asserted by || Defendants as “undisputed for purposes of the motion.” Fed. R. P. 56(e)(2). Alternatively, if | Plaintiff fails to oppose the motion or file a statement of non-opposition, the Court may || recommend that this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court | order.

5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file oppositions or statements of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (see ECF No. 56).

8 IT IS SO ORDERED.

10 Dated: _ December 21, 2021 [spe ey UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE