Nguon v Dickinson

Filing 21

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 8/10/2011 RECOMMENDING that the 18 Motion to Dismiss be granted, that the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed and that the Clerk of Court close the file. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. Objections to F&R due within 21 days. (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

HUNG DUONG NGUON,

11
12
13
14
15
16

Petitioner,

No. CIV S-09-2975 GEB CKD P

vs.
KATHLEEN L. DICKINSON,
Respondent.

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
/

By order dated June 28, 2011, petitioner was ordered to file either an opposition to

17

respondent’s pending motion to dismiss, or a statement of non-opposition, within thirty days.

18

The thirty-day period has now expired, and petitioner has not filed an opposition to the motion or

19

otherwise responded to the court’s order.

20

Local Rule 230(l) provides in part: “Failure of the responding party to file written

21

opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to

22

the granting of the motion . . . .” Further, Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with

23

the Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or

24

Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.”

25
26

“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.”
Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Pro se litigants are bound by the rules of
1

1

procedure, even though pleadings are liberally construed in their favor. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d

2

565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987); Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364-65 (9th Cir.1986) .

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

4

1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. #18) be granted;

5

2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. No. #1) be dismissed;

6

and

7

3. The Clerk of Court shall close the file.

8

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

9

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-

10

one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

11

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

12

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” In his objections petitioner

13

may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of

14

the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (the district

15

court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the

16

applicant). Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after

17

service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the

18

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

19

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

20

Dated: August 10, 2011

21

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25

2
nguo2975.Fsc.hab

26
2