Pillors v. Lopez

Filing 20

ORDER Requiring Plaintiff to File Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to Defendant Lopez's Motion to Dismiss Within Thirty Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 7/26/16. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DARNELL PILLORS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.
J. LOPEZ,

15

Defendant.

1:14-cv-01848-DAD-EPG-PC
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO
FILE OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT
OF NON-OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT LOPEZ’S MOTION TO
DISMISS WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
(ECF No. 18.)

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

On June 7, 2016, Defendant Lopez filed a motion to dismiss this case for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies. (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff was required to file an opposition or
a statement of non-opposition to the motion within twenty-one days, but has not done so. Local
Rule 230(l).
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 may deem any failure to
oppose Defendant’s motion to dismiss as a waiver, and recommend that the motion be granted
on that basis.
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 the
plaintiff’s failure to oppose a motion to dismiss, where the applicable local rule determines that
1

1

failure to oppose a motion will be deemed a waiver of opposition. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46

2

F.3d 52 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 838 (1995) (dismissal upheld even where

3

plaintiff contends he did not receive motion to dismiss, where plaintiff had adequate notice,

4

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b), and time to file opposition); cf. Marshall v. Gates, 44 F.3d 722,

5

725 (9th Cir. 1995); Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 949-50 (9th Cir. 1993)

6

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

12

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

13

Defendant Lopez on June 7, 2016; and

14

2.

15

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this
action.

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 26, 2016

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2