Taylor v. State of California Department of Corrections et al

Filing 46

ORDER and ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 9/5/11: HEARING as to 41 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT and 44 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT continued to 10/19/2011 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26 (CKD) before Magistrate Jud ge Carolyn K. Delaney. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than September 28, 2011 why sanctions should not be imposed for failure timely to file opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the pending motions. Plaintiff is directed to file opposition, if any, to the motions, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, no later than September 28, 2011. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

HAROLD TAYLOR,

9
10
11

Plaintiff,

CIV. NO. S-09-24 JAM CKD PS

vs.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

ORDER AND

12
Defendants.
13
14

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
/

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, referred to the undersigned pursuant to

15

Local Rule 302(c)(21). Defendants’ motions for summary judgment are presently noticed for

16

hearing on the September 14, 2011 law and motion calendar of the undersigned. Opposition to

17

motions, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, must be filed fourteen days preceding the

18

noticed hearing date. E.D. Cal. L. R. 230(c). Court records reflect that plaintiff failed to timely

19

file opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion.

20

Failure to comply with the Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition by the

21

Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the

22

Court.” E.D. Cal. L. R. 11-110; see Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995).

23

Additionally, “[n]o party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments

24

if written opposition to the motion has not been timely filed.” E.D. Cal. L. R. 230(c). Pro se

25

litigants are bound by the rules of procedure, even though pleadings are liberally construed in

26

their favor. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987); Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362,
1

1

1364-65 (9th Cir.1986). The Local Rules specifically provide that cases of persons appearing in

2

propria persona who fail to comply with the Federal and Local Rules are subject to dismissal,

3

judgment by default, and other appropriate sanctions. E.D. Cal. L. R. 183.

4

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

1. The hearing date of September 14, 2011 is vacated. Hearing on defendants’

6

motions is continued to October 19, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. in courtroom no. 26.

7

2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than September 28, 2011 why

8

sanctions should not be imposed for failure timely to file opposition or a statement of non-

9

opposition to the pending motions.

10

3. Plaintiff is directed to file opposition, if any, to the motions, or a statement of

11

non-opposition thereto, no later than September 28, 2011. Failure to file opposition and appear

12

at hearing, or to file a statement of non-opposition, will be deemed a statement of non-

13

opposition, and shall result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

14

4. Reply, if any, shall be filed no later than October 5, 2011.

15

Dated: September 5, 2011

16

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19

4
taylor.nop.con

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2