Bailey v. Fairfield Police Department, et al

Filing 15

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 6/21/11 ORDERING that, within thirty days after the filing date of this order, Plaintiff shall file an opposition, to the pending Motion for more definite statement. Failure to file an opposition will be deemed as consent to have the pending (a) Motion granted; (b) Action dismissed for lack of prosecution; and/or (c) Action dismissed based on Plaintiff's failure to comply with these rules and a court order.(Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

LEE JAMES BAILEY,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

No. 2:10-cv-2295 JAM KJN P

vs.
FAIRFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT,
et al.,

14
Defendants.
15
16

ORDER
/

Plaintiff is a Solano County Jail detainee proceeding without counsel and in forma

17

pauperis in this civil rights action. On February 15, 2011, the court ordered service of the

18

complaint on defendants Fairfield Police Department and Fairfield Police Officers Pucci and

19

Jacobsen. On April 27, 2011, defendants filed a motion for more definite statement, pursuant to

20

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e). Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion.

21

Local Rule 230(l) provides in part: “Failure of the responding party to file written

22

opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to

23

the granting of the motion . . . .” On February 15, 2011, plaintiff was advised of the requirements

24

for filing an opposition to a motion, expressly including motions filed pursuant to, inter alia,

25

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12, and plaintiff was informed that “[f]ailure to timely oppose

26

such a motion may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion.” (Dkt. No. 10 at 3.)
1

1

Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules “may be

2

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

3

inherent power of the Court.” In the order filed February 15, 2011, plaintiff was advised that

4

failure to comply with the Local Rules may result in a recommendation that the action be

5

dismissed.

6

Finally, Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
Involuntary Dismissal; Effect. If the plaintiff fails to prosecute
or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may
move to dismiss the action or any claim against it. Unless the
dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision
(b) and any dismissal not under this rule--except one for lack of
jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join a party under Rule
19--operates as an adjudication on the merits.

7
8
9
10
11

Id.

12

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within thirty days after

13

the filing date of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition, if any, to the pending motion for

14

more definite statement. Failure to file an opposition will be deemed as consent to have the: (a)

15

pending motion granted; (b) action dismissed for lack of prosecution; and/or (c) action dismissed

16

based on plaintiff’s failure to comply with these rules and a court order.

17
18

SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 21, 2011

19
20

_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22

bail2295.nooppo.

23
24
25
26
2