Ahmed v. San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission

Filing 28

ORDER and ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 9/19/2011 ORDERING that the hearing on Dft's 27 Motion to Dismiss is CONTINUED to 11/2/2011. Pltf shall SHOW CAUSE, no later than 10/19/2011, why sanctions should no t be imposed for failure to file an opposition to the pending motion. Pltf shall file an opposition to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, no later than 10/19/2011. Dft may file a reply to Pltf's opposition, if any, on or before 10/26/2011. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

IQTADAR AHMED,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13

No. CIV S-10-3069 GEB EFB PS

vs.
SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL
RAIL COMMISSION,
ORDER AND
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

14
Defendant.
15
16

/
This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned pursuant to

17

Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On August 25,

18

2011, defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff’s first amended complaint, and noticed the motion to

19

be heard on September 28, 2011. Dckt. No. 27.

20

Court records reflect that plaintiff has filed neither an opposition nor a statement of

21

non-opposition to defendant’s motion. Local Rule 230(c) provides that opposition to the

22

granting of a motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, must be served upon the moving

23

party, and filed with this court, no later than fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date or,

24

in this instance, by September 14, 2011. Local Rule 230(c) further provides that “[n]o party will

25

be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments if opposition to the motion has

26

not been timely filed by that party.”
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 ground for dismissal,

3

judgment by default, or other appropriate sanction. 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 defendant’s motion to dismiss, Dckt. No. 27, is continued to

12

November 2, 2011.

13

2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than October 19, 2011, 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 October 19, 2011.

18

4. Failure of plaintiff to file an opposition will be deemed a statement of non-opposition

19

to the pending motion, 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).

22
23
24
25

5. Defendant may file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition, if any, on or before October 26,
2011.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 19, 2011.

26
2