Ransom v. Aguirre et al

Filing 144

ORDER Requiring Plaintiff to File Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Terminating Sanctions, within Twenty-One Days signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 04/13/2017. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRYAN E. RANSOM, 12 13 14 Plaintiff, vs. AGUIRRE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 1:12-cv-01343-DAD-GSA-PC ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS, WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS (ECF No. 135.) TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE 17 18 On September 16, 2016, Defendants filed a motion for terminating sanctions. (ECF No. 19 135.) Plaintiff Bryan E. Ransom (“Plaintiff”) was required to file an opposition or a statement 20 of non-opposition to the motion within twenty-one days, but has not done so. Local Rule 21 230(l). 22 Local Rule 230(l) provides that the failure to oppose a motion "may be deemed a waiver 23 of any opposition to the granting of the motion..." The court may deem any failure to oppose 24 Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions as a waiver, and recommend that the motion be 25 granted on that basis. 26 Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal. U.S. v. 27 Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979). Thus, a court may dismiss an action for the 28 plaintiff's failure to oppose a motion for terminating sanctions, where the applicable local rule 1 1 determines that failure to oppose a motion will be deemed a waiver of opposition. See Ghazali 2 v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 838 (1995) (dismissal upheld even 3 where plaintiff contends he did not receive motion to dismiss, where plaintiff had adequate 4 notice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b), and time to file opposition); cf. Marshall v. Gates, 44 5 F.3d 722, 725 (9th Cir. 1995); Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 949-50 (9th Cir. 6 1993) (motion for summary judgment cannot be granted simply as a sanction for a local rules 7 violation, without an appropriate exercise of discretion). The court may also dismiss this case 8 for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s order. See Local Rule 110; Pagtalunan v. 9 Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. Within twenty-one days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file 12 an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion for terminating 13 sanctions filed by Defendants on September 16, 2016; and 14 2. 15 Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. 16 17 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 13, 2017 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?