Brannon v. Kadavari et al
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 9/30/2010 ORDERING that, w/in 21 days, pltf to either file an opposition or statement of no oppostition to the 29 motion for more definite statement. (Yin, K)
(PC) Brannon v. Kadevari, et al
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 vs. R. KADEVARI, et al., Defendants. / Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel seeking relief for alleged civil rights violations. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 2, 2010, defendants Shackford and Mihelich filed a motion for more definite statement. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or a statement of no opposition to the motion to dismiss. In cases in which one party is incarcerated and proceeding without counsel, motions ordinarily are submitted on the record without oral argument. Local Rule 230(l). "Opposition, if any, to the granting of the motion shall be served and filed with the Clerk by the responding party not more than eighteen (18) days, plus three (3) days for mailing or electronic service, after the date of service of the motion." Id. A responding party's failure "to file written opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion and may result in the imposition of sanctions." Id. Furthermore, a party's failure to
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GREGORY W. BRANNON, Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-1130 EFB P
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
comply with any order or with the Local Rules "may be grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court." Local Rule 110. The court may recommend that an action be dismissed with or without prejudice, as appropriate, if a party disobeys an order or the Local Rules. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court did not abuse discretion in dismissing pro se plaintiff's complaint for failing to obey an order to re-file an amended complaint to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for pro se plaintiff's failure to comply with local rule regarding notice of change of address affirmed). On April 21, 2010, the court advised plaintiff of the requirements for filing an opposition to the motion, that failure to oppose such a motion may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion and that failure to comply with the Local Rules may result in dismissal. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, within 21 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file either an opposition to the motion or a statement of no opposition. Failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions or dismissal of the moving defendants. DATED: September 30, 2010.
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?