Harvey v. City of South Lake Tahoe et al
Filing
100
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 1/17/2014 ORDERING the Clerk is directed to serve plaintiff with a copy of 99 Order to Show Cause; the Court's 12/30/2013 order to show cause is MODIFIED as follows: a) 97 Motion to Dismi ss hearing is CONTINUED to 2/26/2014; b) plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE, in writing, no later than 2/12/2014, why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the pending motion; c) plaintif f shall file an opposition to the motion, or statement of non-opposition thereto, no later than 2/12/2014; d) failure of plaintiff to file an opposition to the motion will be deemed a statement of non-opposition thereto, and may result in a recommend ation that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution and/or for failure to comply with the court orders and this court's local rules; e) defendants may file a reply to plaintiff's opposition, if any, on or before 2/19/2014. (Waggoner, D)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DANIEL THOMAS HARVEY,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:10-cv-1653-KJM-EFB PS
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
ANDREW EISSINGER, CHARLES
DUKE, SHANNON LANEY, and JAKE
HERMINGHAUS,
16
Defendants.
17
18
On November 27, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the fifth amended complaint
19
for failure to state a claim.1 ECF No. 97. Defendants noticed the hearing on that motion for
20
January 8, 2014. Id. Pursuant to this court’s local rules, plaintiff was required to file an
21
opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion by December 26, 2013. See E.D. Cal.
22
L.R. 230(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a).
23
Plaintiff failed to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition. Therefore, on
24
December 30, 2013, plaintiff was ordered to show cause, in writing, no later than January 15,
25
2014, why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or a statement
26
of non-opposition to the pending motion. ECF No. 99. The order also continued the hearing on
27
28
1
This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21).
1
1
defendants’ motion to dismiss to January 29, 2014, and ordered plaintiff to file an opposition or
2
statement of non-opposition to the pending motion no later than January 15, 2014. Id. As of the
3
date of this order, plaintiff has not filed an opposition or statement of non-opposition. However,
4
court records reflect that the Clerk of the Court failed to serve plaintiff with the December 30
5
order to show cause. That order shall be served on plaintiff forthwith. Further, plaintiff will be
6
given additional time to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition and to respond to the
7
December 30, 2013 order to show cause.
8
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
9
1. The Clerk is directed to serve plaintiff with a copy of the court’s December 30, 2013
10
11
12
13
order to show cause, ECF No. 99.
2. The court’s December 30, 2013 order to show cause is modified as follows:
a. The hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 97) is continued to
February 26, 2014.
14
b. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than February 12, 2014, why
15
sanctions should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or a statement of non-
16
opposition to the pending motion.
17
18
19
c. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition
thereto, no later than February 12, 2014.
d. Failure of plaintiff to file an opposition to the motion will be deemed a
20
statement of non-opposition thereto, and may result in a recommendation that this action be
21
dismissed for lack of prosecution and/or for failure to comply with court orders and this court’s
22
Local Rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
23
e. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition, if any, on or before
24
February 19, 2014.
25
DATED: January 17, 2014.
26
27
28
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?