Feiger v. Smith et al

Filing 22

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF to File Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to 21 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Within Thirty (30) Days signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 6/9/2016. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT FEIGER,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
vs.
MARLENE SMITH, et al.,

15

Defendants.

1:14-cv-01920-DAD-EPG-PC
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO
FILE OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT
OF NON-OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
(ECF No. 21.)

16
17

On April 28, 2016, defendants Smith, Clark, and Graves (“Defendants”) filed a motion
Plaintiff Robert Feiger (“Plaintiff”) was required to file an

18

to dismiss.

19

opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion within twenty-one days, but has not

20

done so. Local Rule 230(l).

(ECF No. 21.)

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

on that basis.

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

failure to oppose a motion will be deemed a waiver of opposition. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

(motion for summary judgment cannot be granted simply as a sanction for a local rules

6

violation, without an appropriate exercise of discretion). The Court may also dismiss this case

7

for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order. See Local Rule 110; Pagtalunan v.

8

Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002)

9
10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

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

11

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

12

Defendants on April 28, 2016; and

13

2.

14

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

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 9, 2016

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
2