1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PERCY LEE RHODES, Case No. 1:21-cv-00942-CDB (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 v. (Doc. 53) 14 JOSEPH RUIZ, et al., 15 Defendants.

16 17 Plaintiff Percy Lee Rhodes, a former county jail inmate, is a proceeding pro se and in 18 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to

. 19 I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 20 On December 23, 2024, Defendant Cortez filed a motion for summary judgment, or 21 alternatively, summary adjudication. (See Doc. 51.) The motion included a Rand1 warning. (Doc. 22 51-3.) The following day, Defendant McComas filed a motion for summary judgment. (See Doc. 23 52.) It too included a Rand warning. (Doc. 52-4.) 24 On January 16, 2025, when more than 21 days had passed without a response by Plaintiff, 25 the Court issued its Order To Show Cause (OSC) Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed for 26 Plaintiff’s Failure to File an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition. (Doc. 53.) Plaintiff was 27

1 1 directed to file a written response to the OSC, or alternatively, to file an opposition or statement 2 of non-opposition to the pending summary judgment motions within fourteen days. (Id. at 3.) 3 On January 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Notice and Warning to Defendant 4 Ivana Cortez [Fed. R. Civ. P.56] Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary 5 Judgment.” (Doc. 54.) 6 On January 28, 2025, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Plaintiff’s Statement of Failure to 7 File An [Opposition] or Statement [of] Non-Opposition.” (Doc. 55.) That same date, Plaintiff also 8 filed pleadings opposing summary judgment as to Defendants Lightner, McComas, and Ruiz. 9 (Docs. 56-58.) 10 II. DISCUSSION 11 In his written response to the OSC, Plaintiff states his failure to file an opposition or 12 statement of non-opposition to the pending summary judgment motions was “entirely [his] error 13 [but] not the result of [a] deliberate or intentional decision by Plaintiff.” (Doc. 55 at 1.) Plaintiff 14 asks that sanctions not be imposed. (Id. at 2.) 15 In light of Plaintiff’s written response to the OSC and the oppositions filed on January 21 16 and January 28, 2025, the Court will discharge the OSC finding that Plaintiff’s conduct cited in 17 the order to show cause is the result of excusable neglect and has been remedied with Plaintiff’s 18 recent filings. See In re Veritas Software Corp. Sec. Litig.,

(9th Cir. 2007). 19 The time for opposing the pending summary judgment motions has now passed. 20 The pending summary judgment motions will be deemed submitted on February 11, 2025, 21 the deadline for the filing of any reply, employing January 28, 2025, as the opposition filing date. 22 See Local Rule 230(l). No further briefing will be accepted. The Court will issue its order on the 23 summary judgment motions in due course. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 1 Il. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 2 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that the OSC issued January 16, 2025 (Doc. 3 | 53), is DISCHARGED. 4 | IT IS SO ORDERED. ° Dated: _ January 30, 2025 | ) Ww Vv R~ 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28