Harvey v. City of South Lake Tahoe et al
Filing
99
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 12/30/2013 ORDERING Motion Hearing RESET for 1/29/2014 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (EFB) before Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan; Plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE, in writing, no later th an 1/15/2014, why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to timely file an oppositioin or a statement of non-opposition to the pending motion; Plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motion, or statement of non-opposition thereto, no later tha n 1/15/2014; failure of plaintiff to file an opposition to the motion will be deemed a statement of non-opposition thereto, andmay result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution and/or failure to comply with court orders and Local Rules; defendants may file a reply to plaintiff's opposition, if any, on or before 1/22/2014. (Waggoner, D)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
DANIEL THOMAS HARVEY,
11
12
13
14
No. 2:10-cv-1653-KJM-EFB PS
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
ANDREW EISSINGER, CHARLES
DUKE, SHANNON LANEY, and JAKE
HERMINGHAUS,
15
Defendants.
16
17
On November 27, 2013, the remaining defendants filed a motion to dismiss the fifth
18
amended complaint for failure to state a claim.1 ECF No. 97. Defendants noticed the hearing on
19
that motion for January 8, 2014. Id.
20
Court records reflect that plaintiff has not filed an opposition or statement of non-
21
opposition to the motion to dismiss. Local Rule 230(c) provides that opposition to the granting of
22
a motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, must be served upon the moving party, and
23
filed with this court, no later than fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date or, in this
24
instance, by December 26, 2013. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a). Local Rule 230(c) further provides
25
that “[n]o party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments if
26
opposition to the motion has not been timely filed by that party.”
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
Local Rule 183, governing persons appearing in pro se, provides that failure to comply
2
with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules may be grounds for dismissal,
3
judgment by default, or other appropriate sanctions. Local Rule 110 provides that failure to
4
comply with the Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all
5
sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” See also
6
Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules
7
is a proper ground for dismissal.”). Pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure, even
8
though pleadings are liberally construed in their favor. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th
9
Cir. 1987).
10
Accordingly, good cause appearing, it is hereby ORDERED that:
11
1. The hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 97) is continued to January
12
29, 2014.
13
2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than January 15, 2014, why sanctions
14
should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to
15
the pending motion.
16
17
3. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto,
no later than January 15, 2014.
18
4. Failure of plaintiff to file an opposition to the motion will be deemed a statement of
19
non-opposition thereto, and may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack
20
of prosecution and/or for failure to comply with court orders and this court’s Local Rules. See
21
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110.
22
5. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition, if any, on or before January 22,
23
2014.
24
DATED: December 30, 2013.
25
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?