(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 TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING
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
14-DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff Ramses Nieves is proceedings pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Fourteenth
Amendment excessive force claims against Defendants Ashby and Patrick.
I. INTRODUCTION
On November 4, 2025, Defendant Ashby filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 24.) On November 6, 2025, Defendant
Patrick filed a Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). (Doc. 25.)
Plaintiff has failed to timely file either an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the
pending motions to dismiss.
//
//
Case 1:23-cv-01036-SKO Document 28 Filed 12/05/25 Page 1 of 3

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
II. DISCUSSION
This Court’s Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide
that a “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court
may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or
Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” See Local Rule 110. Further, the Local Rules also
state:
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) (“Motions in Prisoner Actions”). Therefore, Plaintiff’s opposition or statement
of non-opposition to Defendant Ashby’s pending motion was due on or before November 25, 2025,
and his opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendant Patrick’s pending motion was due
on or before November 27, 2025, plus time for mailing.
Although more than 21 days have passed, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or a statement
of non-opposition to either pending motion to dismiss, and has not otherwise contacted the Court.1
III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that:
1. Plaintiff SHALL show cause in writing, within 14 days of the date of service of this
order, why sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to comply with the Local
Rules and failure to prosecute. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file
oppositions or statements of non-opposition to the pending motions to dismiss (Docs.
24 & 25).
Plaintiff is advised that a failure to respond to this Order to Show Cause (OSC) may
result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for a failure to obey court orders
1 The undersigned notes the previously assigned magistrate judge issued a prior Order to Show Cause to Plaintiff in
this action for a failure to obey a Court order. (See Doc. 8.)
Case 1:23-cv-01036-SKO Document 28 Filed 12/05/25 Page 2 of 3

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
3
and Local Rules and a failure to prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 5, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:23-cv-01036-SKO Document 28 Filed 12/05/25 Page 3 of 3