Opinion
1:21-cv-01602-JLT-CDB (PC)
11-20-2023
RICARDO MARTINEZ, Plaintiff, v. D. LAWHORN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDERS (DOC. 40)
I. INTRODUCTION
On November 6, 2023, this Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with the Court's orders, namely, filing an opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 40.) Alternatively, Plaintiff was advised he could file his opposition or statement of nonopposition to the motion for summary judgment. (Id.)
On November 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed a two-page document titled “Plaintiff is filing his statements to show why action should not be dismissed.” (Doc. 44.) Plaintiff contends that on October 19, 2023, he submitted “a declaration with lettered exhibits, set one, set two, and set three.” (Id.) He states, “on exhibit set two, it is a true handwriting copy of a CDCR 602 grievance dated 4/29/2020, with a Log # KVSP-0-20-01551,” and indicates he exhausted “all steps.” (Id.) Plaintiff further contends he “attached a copy of a letter mailed to Defendant C. Pfeiffer,” requesting “an amend modification of a numerous grievances, including grievance Log # KVSP-0-20-01551.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff then states Defendant “failed to fully produce documents” on July 24, 2023 and September 18, 2023. (Id.) Plaintiff asserts he “is attaching copies of Plaintiff Third Request for Production of Documents in which these documents also necessary to show to the Court for a consider of Plaintiff request for denied of Defendants summary judgment.” (Id.) He concludes the Court should denied Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (Id.)
II. DISCUSSION
Initially, the Court notes there were no attachments to Plaintiff's response to the Order to Show Cause (“OSC”). If Plaintiff intended to submit additional documentation or exhibits, he did not do so. The written response to the OSC is two pages in total and did not include copies of Plaintiff's “Third Request for Production of Documents.”
Next, the Court construes Plaintiff's November 17, 2023 filing to be an opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Defendants will be directed to file a reply within 14 days, assuming they choose to do so. Once a reply has been filed or the time to do so has passed, the motion for summary judgment will be deemed submitted for decision. This Court will then issue findings and recommendations in due course.
III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Accordingly, the OSC (Doc. 40) issued November 6, 2023, is HEREBY DISCHARGED. Defendants SHALL file any reply to Plaintiff's opposition to the motion for summary judgment within 14 days of the date of this Order. The motion will be deemed submitted once a reply has been filed or the time to do so has passed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.