Low v. City of Sacramento

Filing 7

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 08/04/10 ORDERING plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE in writing not later than 08/19/10 why sanctions including dismisal should not be imposed for failure to prosecute and failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to 5 motion to dismiss. A written statement of opposition or non-opposition due by 09/02/10. Motion Hearing re-set for 9/16/2010 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman.(Williams, D)

(PS) Low v. City of Sacramento

Doc. 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 v. 12 CITY OF SACRAMENTO, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Local Rule 230(c) also provides that "[n]o 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."
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MONTE L. LOW, Plaintiff, No. 2:10-cv-01624 JAM KJN PS

Defendant. ______________________________/

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On June 29, 2010, defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint and noticed the motion for a hearing to take place on August 12, 2010. (Dkt. No. 5.) Plaintiff was obligated to file and serve a written opposition or statement of nonopposition at least fourteen days prior to the noticed hearing date; thus, such an opposition or statement of non-opposition was due on or before July 29, 2010. See E. Dist. Local Rule 230(c).1 The court's docket reveals that plaintiff failed to file a written opposition or statement of nonopposition with respect to defendant's motion. Eastern District Local Rule 110 provides that "[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court 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

Dockets.Justia.com

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

Court." Moreover, Local Rule 183(a) provides, in part: 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. In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The hearing on defendant's motion to dismiss, which is presently set for

August 12, 2010, is continued until September 16, 2010. 2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than August 19, 2010, why

sanctions, including dismissal of his lawsuit, should not be imposed for plaintiff's failure to prosecute and failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the pending motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rules 110, 183(a); see Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991) (stating that a court "may act sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute"); Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (recognizing that courts may dismiss an action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) sua sponte for a plaintiff's failure to prosecute or comply with the rules of civil procedure or the court's orders); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) ("Failure to follow a district court's local rules is a proper ground for dismissal."); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) ("Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants."); Thompson v. Housing Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (stating that district courts have inherent power to control their dockets and may impose sanctions including dismissal). Failure to file the required writing shall constitute an additional ground for the imposition of appropriate sanctions, including dismissal. 3. Plaintiff shall file a written opposition or statement of non-opposition to

the pending motion to dismiss on or before September 2, 2010. Failure to file a written opposition shall be deemed a statement of non-opposition, and shall constitute an additional
2

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

ground for the imposition of appropriate sanctions, including dismissal. 4. September 9, 2010. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: August 4, 2010 Defendant may file a reply to plaintiffs' opposition, if needed, on or before

_____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3