(PC) Nieves v. Patrick et al

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 1:23-cv-01036-SKO Document31 Filed 01/05/26 Page 1of3

1

2

3

4

fs)

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 RAMSES NIEVES, Case No.: 1:23-cv-01036-SKO
12 Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING ORDER ISSUED

DECEMBER 390, 2025
8 (Doc. 29)
14 | R PATRICK, etal.,
15 Defendants.
16
17 Plaintiff Ramses Nieves is proceedings pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil nghts
1g || action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983.
19 I. INTRODUCTION
20 Plaintiff failed to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants Ashby
91 || and Patrick’s motions to dismiss. Accordingly, on December 5, 2025, the Court issued its Order
22, || to Show Cause (OSC) Why Sanctions Should Not be Imposed for Plaintiff's Failure to File an
93 | Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to the Pending Motions to Dismiss. (Doc. 28.)
mn Plaintiff s response was due in 14 days. (Id.)
5 On December 29, 2025, following no response from Plaintiff, the Court signed the Order
96 | Discharging Order to Show Cause and Order Deeming Motions to Dismiss Unopposed and
27 Submitted. (Doc. 29.) The orders were docketed and served on December 30, 2025. (Id.)!
28 ! The orders were entered on the docket at 9:21 am.
Aurrmyicarep 7Th

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
On December 29, 2025, Plaintiff also filed a response to the OSC and his opposition to the
pending motions to dismiss. (Doc. 30.) This filing was entered on the Court’s docket on
December 30, 2025. (Id.)2
II. DISCUSSION
Because Plaintiff has filed an opposition to Defendants’ pending motions to dismiss, the
Court will vacate its previous order deeming the motions to be unopposed and submitted with the
followings warning to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff’s response to the OSC and opposition to Defendants’ motions to dismiss does not
include a proof of service. (See Doc. 30, generally.) As Plaintiff was previously advised, a proof
of service is required. (See Doc. 3 at 4 [“for purposes of application of the ‘Mailbox Rule,’ see
Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir. 2009), on all documents filed with the Court,
the pro se plaintiff must attach a Proof of Service, indicating the date on which the filing was
turned over to prison authorities. A document submitted without proof of service may be
stricken/returned or if filed after the deadline, deemed not timely filed”].) Because Plaintiff did
not include a proof of service with this filing, the Court could continue to deem it untimely,
particularly where the filing is dated “December 15, 2025,” but was not received by the Court
until December 29, 2025. Plaintiff is cautioned that any future filing that does not include the
required proof of service will be stricken and returned or may be deemed untimely filed.
III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:
1. The orders issued December 30, 2025 (Doc. 29) are VACATED;
2. Defendants SHALL file any replies to Plaintiff’s opposition no later than 14 days
from the date of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 2, 2026 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .
2 Plaintiff’s filing was entered on the docket at 11:15 a.m.
Case 1:23-cv-01036-SKO Document 31 Filed 01/05/26 Page 2 of 3

Case 1:23-cv-01036-SKO Document 31
Filed 01/05/26
Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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