Arocha v. Sauceda et al

Filing 78

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 9/25/2013 ORDERING that, within 21 days, plaintiff shall file an opposition, if any, to the 66 motion to dismiss. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RUDY AROCHA,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:11-cv-2959 KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

E. SAUCEDA, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

On August 26, 2013, defendants Miranda, Abshire, Alziebler, Hernandez and Pagala filed

18

a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) and 12(b)(6). Plaintiff has

19

not opposed the motion.

20

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

21

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

22

the granting of the motion . . . .” On June 11, 2013, plaintiff was advised of the requirements for

23

filing an opposition to the motion and that failure to oppose such a motion may be deemed a

24

waiver of opposition to the motion.

25

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

26

imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of

27

the Court.” In the order filed June 13, 2013, plaintiff was advised that failure to comply with the

28

Local Rules may result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed.
1

1

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within twenty-one days of the

2

date of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition, if any, to the motion to dismiss. Failure to file

3

an opposition will be deemed as a statement of non-opposition and shall result in a

4

recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

5

Dated: September 25, 2013

6
7
8

ar2959.osc

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2