Dixon v. Harrington et al
ORDER Requiring Plaintiff to File Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to Defendant Armas's Motion to Dismiss within Thirty Days signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 12/28/2016. (Flores, E)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
TRADELL M. DIXON,
Case No. 1:13-cv-00165-DAD-EPG (PC)
Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE
OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF NONOPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ARMAS’S
MOTION TO DISMISS WITHIN THIRTY
M. ARMAS, et al.,
Tradell Dixon (APlaintiff@) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. On November 18, 2016,
defendant M. Armas filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 19). Plaintiff was required to file an
opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion within twenty-one days (Local Rule
230(l)), but has not done so.
Local Rule 230(l) provides that the failure to oppose a motion “may be deemed a waiver
of any opposition to the granting of the motion….” The Court will deem any failure to oppose
Defendant’s motion to dismiss as a waiver, and recommend that the motion be granted on that
Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper grounds for dismissal. U.S. v.
Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979). Thus, a Court may dismiss an action for a plaintiff’s
failure to oppose a motion to dismiss, where the applicable local rule determines that failure to
oppose a motion will be deemed a waiver of opposition. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52 (9th
Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 838 (1995) (dismissal upheld even where plaintiff contends he
did not receive motion to dismiss, where plaintiff had adequate notice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
5(b), and time to file opposition); cf. Heinemann v. Satterberg, 731 F.3d 914, 916 (9th Cir. 2013)
(holding that a motion for summary judgment cannot be granted based on a failure to file
opposition, regardless of any local rule to the contrary).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Within thirty days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an
opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion to dismiss filed by
Defendant M. Armas; and
2. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the Court will deem the failure to
respond as a waiver and may recommend that the motion to dismiss be granted on
IT IS SO ORDERED.
December 28, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?