United States of America v. DE KELLIS

Filing 24

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 4/27/10 ORDERING that the hearing re Pltf's 22 Motion to Dismiss is continued to 5/20/2010 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 9 (GGH) before Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows. It is further ORDERED that the Govt shall SHOW CAUSE no later than 5/6/10 why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to respond to the pending motion in a timely manner. Govt directed to file response to motion no later than 5/6/10. (Owen, K)

Download PDF
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 1 vs. JOSEPH J. DEKELLIS, Defendant. / ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rules 72-302(c)(21) and 302(c)(16) (actions brought pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 1071 involving federally insured student loans. Defendant's motion to dismiss is presently noticed for hearing on the April 29, 2010, law and motion calendar of the undersigned. Opposition to motions, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, must be filed fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date. E.D. Cal. L. R. 78-230(c). Court records reflect that the government failed to file opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion. Failure to comply with the Local Rules "may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court." E.D. Cal. L. R. 11-110; see Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Additionally, "[n]o party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments ORDER AND IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, CIV. NO. S- 09-1852 JAM GGH PS 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 if written opposition to the motion has not been timely filed." E.D. Cal. L. R. 78-230(c).1 Pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure, even though pleadings are liberally construed in their favor. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987); Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364-65 (9th Cir.1986). The Local Rules specifically provide that cases of persons appearing in propria persona who fail to comply with the Federal and Local Rules are subject to dismissal, judgment by default, and other appropriate sanctions. E.D. Cal. L. R. 83-183. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The hearing date of April 29, 2010 is vacated. Hearing on defendant's motion is continued to May 20, 2010. 2. The government shall show cause, in writing, no later than May 6, 2010 why sanctions should not be imposed for failure timely to file opposition or a statement of nonopposition to the pending motion. 3. The government is directed to file opposition, if any, to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, no later than May 6, 2010. Failure to file opposition and appear at hearing, or to file a statement of non-opposition, will be deemed a statement of nonopposition, and shall result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. DATED: April 27, 2010 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows GREGORY G. HOLLOWS U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE G G H : 0 7 6 : D e K e l l i s 1 8 5 2 . o s c .w p d Moreover, failure to appear at hearing may be deemed withdrawal of opposition to a motion or may result in sanctions. E.D. Cal. L. R. 78-230(j). 2 1

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?