Bontemps v. Sotak et al
Filing
64
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 4/1/2013 ORDERING that, within 21 days, plaintiff shall file either an opposition to the 63 motion to dismiss or a statement of no opposition. (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
GREGORY C. BONTEMPS,
Plaintiff,
11
vs.
12
13
No. 2:09-cv-2115 LKK EFB P
SOTAK, et al.,
Defendants.
14
ORDER
/
15
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42
16
17
U.S.C. § 1983. On March 6, 2013, defendant Smith filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state
18
a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiff has not filed an
19
opposition or a statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion.
In cases in which one party is incarcerated and proceeding without counsel, motions
20
21
ordinarily are submitted on the record without oral argument. Local Rule 230(l). “Opposition, if
22
any, to the granting of the motion shall be served and filed by the responding party not more than
23
twenty-one (21), days after the date of service of the motion.” Id. A responding party’s failure
24
“to file an opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any
25
opposition to the granting of the motion and may result in the imposition of sanctions.” Id.
26
////
1
1
Furthermore, a party’s failure to comply with any order or with the Local Rules “may be
2
grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or
3
within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. The court may recommend that an
4
action be dismissed with or without prejudice, as appropriate, if a party disobeys an order or the
5
Local Rules. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court did not
6
abuse discretion in dismissing pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing to obey an order to re-file
7
an amended complaint to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Carey v. King, 856
8
F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for pro se plaintiff’s failure to comply with local
9
rule regarding notice of change of address affirmed).
10
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, within 21 days of the date of this order,
11
plaintiff shall file either an opposition to the motion to dismiss or a statement of no opposition.
12
Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed
13
without prejudice.
14
DATED: April 1, 2013.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2
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?