Ransom v. Herrera et al

Filing 47

ORDER Requiring Plaintiff to File Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to Defendant Brannum's Motion to Dismiss within Thirty Days signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 08/31/2016. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LEONARD RANSOM, JR.,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
DANNY HERRERA, et al.,

1:11-cv-01709-LJO-EPG-PC
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO
FILE OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF
NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
BRANNUM’S MOTION TO DISMISS
WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

Defendants.

16
17

On July 7, 2016, defendant Ricky Brannum (“Defendant”) filed a motion to dismiss.

18

(ECF No. 38.) Plaintiff was required to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to

19

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

20

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

21

waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion . . .” The Court will deem any failure to

22

oppose Defendant’s motion to dismiss as a waiver, and recommend that the motion be granted

23

on that basis.

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 838 (1995) (dismissal upheld even where plaintiff contends he
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

appropriate exercise of discretion).

6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1.

Within thirty days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an

8

opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion to dismiss filed by

9

Defendant Ricky Brannum; and

10

2.

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

11

respond as a waiver and may recommend that the motion to dismiss be granted

12

on that basis.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 31, 2016

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2