Dawson v. Commissioner of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 32

ORDER REQUIRING Plaintiff to FILE Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, within Twenty-One Days signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 4/13/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ISAAC DA’BOUR DAWSON,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
vs.
CDCR, et al.,
Defendants.

16

1:15-cv-01867-DAD-GSA-PC
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO
FILE OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT
OF NON-OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS, WITHIN TWENTY-ONE
DAYS
(ECF No. 27.)
TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE

17
18

On December 14, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss this case. (ECF No. 27.)

19

Plaintiff Isaac Da’bour Dawson (“Plaintiff”) was required to file an opposition or a statement of

20

non-opposition to the motion within twenty-one days, but has not done so. Local Rule 230(l).

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..." The court may deem any failure to oppose

23

Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions as a waiver, and recommend that the motion be

24

granted on that basis.

25

Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground 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 twenty-one days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file

11

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

12

Defendants Guzman, Gonzales, Marsh, and Johnson on December 14, 2016; and

13

2.

14

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

15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 13, 2017

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2