Opinion
No. CV F 02 5783 AWI SMS P.
February 12, 2006
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFAULT SHOULD NOT BE ENTERED AGAINST DEFENDANTS
Thomas Gaetano Luparello ("plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff filed the instant action on June 17, 2002, in the Sacramento Division of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. Plaintiff alleges that defendants are violating the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc- 2000cc-5, by implementing and enforcing the California Department of Corrections ("CDC") grooming policy that requires male inmates keep short hair. (First Amended Complaint, pg. 5.) Plaintiff, an American Indian, alleges that his religion requires him to wear his hair long and uncut. Id.
On February 8, 2005, this Court issued a Second Discovery and Scheduling Order setting forth deadlines for discovery, amended pleadings and dispositive motions. Pursuant to this Order, the dispositive motion deadline was September 18, 2005.
On September 14, 2005, the parties stipulated to an extension of the dispositive motion deadline to and including October 18, 2005.
On October 14, 2005, the parties again stipulated to extend the dispositive motion deadline to and including November 17, 2005.
A proposed Order of stipulation was submitted to the Court on November 16, 2005, extending the deadline yet again to December 9, 2005.
On December 14, 2005, Plaintiff filed a request for a two week extension of time to file a Motion for Summary Judgment. That Motion was granted on December 16, 2005, extending the deadline to and including January 6, 2006, to file a dispositive Motion. The January 6, 2006, deadline has since expired and the court has neither received a dispositive motion or a request for an extension of time.
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS:
1. Defendants are Ordered to Show Cause why default should not be entered within twenty (20) days of the date of service of this Order.
Defendants are reminded the Local Rule 11-110 provides that "a failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Local Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court."
IT IS SO ORDERED.