(PC) Nieves v. Patrick et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RAMSES NIEVES,
Plaintiff,
v.
R. PATRICK, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 1:23-cv-01036-SKO
ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE
(Doc. 28)
ORDER DEEMING MOTIONS TO DISMISS
UNOPPOSED AND SUBMITTED
Plaintiff Ramses Nieves is proceedings pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983.
I. BACKGROUND
On November 4, 2025, Defendant J. Ashby filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. 24); Defendant
R. Patrick filed a motion to dismiss on November 6, 2025 (Doc. 25).
On December 5, 2025, when Plaintiff failed to file an opposition or statement of non-
opposition to the pending motions, the Court issued an “Order to Show Cause (OSC) Why
Sanctions Should Not be Imposed for Plaintiff’s Failure to File an Opposition or Statement of
Non-Opposition to the Pending Motions to Dismiss”. (Doc. 28.) Plaintiff’s response was due in
14 days. (Id.) Although more than 14 days have passed, Plaintiff has not responded to the OSC.
II. DISCUSSION
This Court’s Local Rules provide, in relevant part:
Case 1:23-cv-01036-SKO Document 29 Filed 12/30/25 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Opposition, if any, to the granting of a motion shall be served and
filed by the responding party not more than twenty-one (21) days
after the date of service of the motion. A responding party who has
no opposition to the granting of the motion shall serve and file a
statement to that effect, specifically designating the motion in
question. Failure of the responding party to file an opposition or
statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any
opposition to the granting of the motion and may result in the
imposition of sanctions.
Local Rule 230(l). Here, although an OSC was issued, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or a
statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ pending motions to dismiss. Defendants’ pending
motions to dismiss are therefore deemed unopposed. See id. (“Failure of the responding party to
file an opposition or statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the
granting of the motion and may result in the imposition of sanctions”.)
The Court will discharge the previously issued OSC and deem the pending motions to
dismiss to be unopposed and submitted for decision. Defendants’ unopposed motions to dismiss
will be decided in due course.
III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY ORDERS:
1. The OSC issued December 5, 2025 (Doc. 28) is DISCHARGED;
2. Defendant Ashby’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 24) and Defendant Patrick’s motion to
dismiss (Doc. 25) are DEEMED unopposed and under submission; and
3. The pending motions will be decided in due course.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 29, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:23-cv-01036-SKO Document 29 Filed 12/30/25 Page 2 of 2