Jackson v. Cates, et al

Filing 48

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 2/1/2012 ORDERING that, within 21 days, plaintiff shall file either an opposition to the 47 motion to dismiss or a statement of no opposition. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

MIDEL JACKSON,
Plaintiff,

11
12

No. CIV S-10-2070 GEB EFB P

vs.

13

MATHEW CATES, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16

ORDER
/

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

17

U.S.C. § 1983. On December 20, 2011, defendants Cano, Zapata, Lopez, Petit, DeLacruz,

18

Romero, Anices, Desimone, Zachariah, Palagummi and Aquilizan filed a motion to dismiss on

19

the ground that plaintiff has failed to comply with the court’s orders, the Federal Rules of Civil

20

Procedure and the Local Rules of this court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110.

21

In cases in which one party is incarcerated and proceeding without counsel, motions

22

ordinarily are submitted on the record without oral argument. Local Rule 230(l). “Opposition, if

23

any, to the granting of the motion shall be served and filed with the Clerk by the responding

24

party not more than eighteen (18) days, plus three (3) days for mailing or electronic service, after

25

the date of service of the motion.” Id. A responding party’s failure “to file written opposition or

26

to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of
1

1
2

the motion and may result in the imposition of sanctions.” Id.
Furthermore, a party’s failure to comply with any order or with the Local Rules “may be

3

grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the

4

inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. The court may recommend that an action be

5

dismissed with or without prejudice, as appropriate, if a party disobeys an order or the Local

6

Rules. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court did not abuse

7

discretion in dismissing pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing to obey an order to re-file an

8

amended complaint to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d

9

1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for pro se plaintiff’s failure to comply with local rule

10
11

regarding notice of change of address affirmed).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, within 21 days of the date of this order,

12

plaintiff shall file either an opposition to the motion to dismiss or a statement of no opposition.

13

Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed

14

without prejudice.

15

DATED: February 1, 2012.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2