Duran v. Gibson

Filing 18

ORDER Requiring Plaintiff to File Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to Defendants' 16 Motion to Dismiss Within Thirty Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 3/14/17. Thirty-Day Deadline. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 PEDRO F. DURAN, 11 v. 12 13 Case No. 1:14-cv-01337-EPG (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF NONOPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WITHIN THIRTY DAYS A. JOHNSON, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Pedro Duran (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 17 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. On February 3, 2017, the defendants in this 18 action filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 16). Plaintiff was required to file an opposition or a 19 statement of non-opposition to the motion within twenty-one days (Local Rule 230(l)), but did not 20 do so. 21 Local Rule 230(l) provides that the failure to oppose a motion “may be deemed a waiver 22 of any opposition to the granting of the motion and may result in the imposition of sanctions.” 23 However, the Court will give Plaintiff an additional thirty days to file an opposition or statement 24 of non-opposition to the motion to dismiss. The Court will deem any failure to oppose the motion 25 to dismiss as a waiver of any opposition, and may recommend that the motion be granted on that 26 basis. 27 Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal. U.S. v. 28 Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979). Thus, a Court may dismiss an action for a plaintiff’s 1 1 failure to oppose a motion to dismiss, where the applicable local rule determines that failure to 2 oppose a motion will be deemed a waiver of opposition. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52 (9th 3 Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 838 (1995) (dismissal upheld even where plaintiff contends he 4 did not receive motion to dismiss, where plaintiff had adequate notice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 5(b), and time to file opposition); cf. Heinemann v. Satterberg, 731 F.3d 914, 916 (9th Cir. 2013) 6 (holding that a motion for summary judgment cannot be granted based on a failure to file 7 opposition, regardless of any local rule to the contrary). 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. Within thirty days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an 10 opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion to dismiss; and 11 2. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the Court will deem the failure to 12 respond as a waiver of any opposition and may recommend that the motion to 13 dismiss be granted on that basis. 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 14, 2017 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 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?