Williams v. Rodriguez et al

Filing 78

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF to File Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to 75 Defendants' Motion to Revoke In Forma Pauperis Status and 76 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Within Thirty (30) Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/11/2013. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LONNIE CLARK WILLIAMS, JR.,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.
P. RODRIGUEZ, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

1:09-cv-01882-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO
FILE OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT
OF NON-OPPOSITION TO:
(1) DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
REVOKE IN FORMA PAUPERIS
STATUS (Doc. 75), AND
(2) DEFENDANTS MOTION TO
DISMISS (Doc. 76)

17

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE TO FILE
OPPOSITIONS OR STATEMENTS OF
NON-OPPOSITION

18
19
20

On May 23, 2013, Defendants filed a motion to revoke plaintiff’s in forma pauperis

21

status, and on May 24, 2013, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss this action. (Docs. 75, 76.)

22

Plaintiff was required to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to each of the

23

motions within twenty-one days, but has not done so. Local Rule 230(l).

24

Local Rule 230(l) provides that the failure to oppose a motion "may be deemed a waiver

25

of any opposition to the granting of the motion . . ." The court will deem any failure to oppose

26

either of Defendants= motions as a waiver, and recommend that the motions be granted on that

27

basis.

28

///
1

1

Failure to follow a district court's local rules is a proper grounds for dismissal. U.S. v.

2

Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979). Thus, a court may dismiss an action for plaintiff's

3

failure to oppose a motion to dismiss, where the applicable local rule determines that failure to

4

oppose a motion will be deemed a waiver of opposition. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52 (9th

5

Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 838 (1995) (dismissal upheld even where plaintiff contends he

6

did not receive motion to dismiss, where plaintiff had adequate notice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

7

P. 5(b), and time to file opposition); cf. Marshall v. Gates, 44 F.3d 722, 725 (9th Cir. 1995);

8

Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 949-50 (9th Cir. 1993) (motion for summary

9

judgment cannot be granted simply as a sanction for a local rules violation, without an

10

appropriate exercise of discretion); accord, Heinemann v. Satterberg ---F.3d----, 2013 WL

11

5312568 (9th Cir., Sept. 24, 2013).

12
13

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty days of the date of service
of this order:

14
15

1.

motion to revoke in forma pauperis status filed on May 23, 2013;

16
17

2.

Plaintiff shall file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants’

motion to dismiss filed on May 24, 2013; and

18
19

Plaintiff shall file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants’

3.

If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the Court will deem the failure to

respond as a waiver, and recommend that Defendants’ motions be granted on that basis.

20
21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

24
25
26

October 11, 2013

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

6i0kij8d

27
28
2