Macklin v. Hollingsworth et al

Filing 69

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 9/17/14 re: 62 MOTION to DISMISS CONTINUING Motion Hearing to 10/23/2014 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 25 (KLN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall L. Newman, Plaintiff's written opposition due by 10/9/2014, Wells Fargo's written reply to plaintiff's opposition, if any, due by 10/16/2014. (Meuleman, A) Modified on 9/18/2014 (Meuleman, A).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMES L. MACKLIN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:10-cv-1097 MCE KJN PS

v.

ORDER

MATTHEW HOLLINGSWORTH, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
On August 18, 2014, defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”)1 filed a motion

17
18

to dismiss plaintiff’s second amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

19

8(a) and 12(b)(6).2 (ECF No. 62.) Wells Fargo noticed its motion for a hearing to take place

20

before the undersigned on September 25, 2014. (Id.) Pursuant to this court’s Local Rules,

21

plaintiff was obligated to file and serve a written opposition or statement of non-opposition to the

22

pending motion at least fourteen (14) days prior to the hearing date, or September 11, 2014. See

23
24
25
26
27

1

Plaintiff erroneously named Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Wells Fargo & Co. in the second
amended complaint. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. notified the court of this error in its stipulation with
plaintiff filed August 4, 2014. (ECF No. 50.) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. indicates that it has
accepted service of the second amended complaint despite this error. (See id. at 2.)
2

This action proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21) and 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

28
1

1

E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c).3 The court’s docket reveals that plaintiff, who is proceeding without

2

counsel, failed to file a written opposition or statement of non-opposition with respect to the

3

motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Eastern District Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply

4
5

with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of

6

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

7

Moreover, Eastern District Local Rule 183(a) provides, in part:

8

Any individual representing himself or herself without an attorney
is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, these
Rules, and all other applicable law. All obligations placed on
“counsel” by these Rules apply to individuals appearing in propria
persona. Failure to comply therewith may be ground for dismissal,
judgment by default, or any other sanction appropriate under these
Rules.

9
10
11
12

See also King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the

13

same rules of procedure that govern other litigants”) (overruled on other grounds). Case law is in

14

accord that a district court may impose sanctions, including involuntary dismissal of a plaintiff’s

15

case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), where that plaintiff fails to prosecute his

16

or her case or fails to comply with the court’s orders, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the

17

court’s local rules.4 See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991) (recognizing that a

18
3

19

(c) Opposition and Non-Opposition. Opposition, if any, to the
granting of the motion shall be in writing and shall be filed and
served not less than fourteen (14) days preceding the noticed (or
continued) hearing date. A responding party who has no opposition
to the granting of the motion shall serve and file a statement to that
effect, specifically designating the motion in question. No party
will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral
arguments if opposition to the motion has not been timely filed by
that party. . . .

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

More specifically, Eastern District Local Rule 230(c) provides:

4

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had held that under certain circumstances a district court
does not abuse its discretion by dismissing a plaintiff’s case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b) for failing to file an opposition to a motion to dismiss. See, e.g., Trice v. Clark
County Sch. Dist., 376 Fed. App’x. 789, 790 (9th Cir. 2010) (unpublished). By analogy, this
authority applies to failure to oppose a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which similarly
challenges a plaintiff’s complaint after the filing of an answer.
2

1

court “may act sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute”); Hells Canyon Preservation

2

Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating that courts may dismiss

3

an action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) sua sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to

4

prosecute or comply with the rules of civil procedure or the court’s orders); Ghazali v. Moran, 46

5

F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a

6

proper ground for dismissal.”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992)

7

(“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss an action for

8

failure to comply with any order of the court.”); Thompson v. Housing Auth. of City of L.A., 782

9

F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (stating that district courts have inherent power to

10

control their dockets and may impose sanctions including dismissal or default).

11

In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

12

1.

The hearing on Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 62), which is presently

13

set for September 25, 2014, is CONTINUED until October 23, 2014, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom

14

No. 25 before the undersigned.

15

2.

Plaintiff shall file a written opposition to the motion for judgment on the

16

pleadings, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, on or before October 9, 2014. Plaintiff’s

17

failure to file a written opposition will be deemed a statement of non-opposition to the pending

18

motion and consent to the granting of the motion, and shall constitute an additional ground for the

19

imposition of appropriate sanctions, including a recommendation that plaintiff’s entire case be

20

involuntarily dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Wells Fargo may file a written reply to plaintiff’s opposition, if any, on or before

21

3.

22

October 16, 2014.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 17, 2014

25
26
27
28
3