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)

Download PDF
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?