Opinion
2:17-cv-1884 TLN DB P
01-17-2023
LANCE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. ROMERO, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
DEBORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Plaintiff alleges defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by closing a mechanical door on him and/or refusing to provide him medical care. On April 28, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion to compel defendants to respond to discovery. (ECF No. 164.) Defendants filed an opposition. (ECF No. 167.) Thereafter, plaintiff requested and was granted extensions of time to file a reply brief. (ECF Nos. 171, 174, 178, 180.) The reply brief was due November 28, 2022. While this court recognizes that a reply brief is not required, it is worth noting that after six months to do so, plaintiff did not file one.
In a document filed June 13, 2022, plaintiff informed the court that he was in the process of being released.
On November 18, 2022, defendant Chuckorski filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 181.) Pursuant to Local Rule 230(1), plaintiff's opposition was due 21 days after service of the motion. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or otherwise responded to defendant Chuckorski's motion.
This court is concerned that plaintiff may no longer intend to prosecute this case. The last document he filed here was on September 9, 2022. It was a motion for an extension of time to respond to discovery and to file a reply to his motion to compel. This court will order plaintiff to respond to this order to indicate whether he intends to continue prosecuting this action. If he does, plaintiff shall explain why he has failed to file an opposition to defendant Chuckorski's motion for summary judgment.
Accordingly, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty days of the filed date of this order, plaintiff shall file a document informing the court whether he intends to continue prosecuting this action and, if he does, why he failed to file a timely opposition to defendant Chuckorski's motion for summary judgment.