Martel v. United States of America

Filing 8

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 3/15/12 ORDERING the hearing date of March 28, 2012 is vacated. Hearing on defendant's motion is continued to April 25, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. in courtroom no. 26; Plaintiff is directed to file opposition, if any, to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, no later than April 4, 2012. Failure to file opposition and appear at hearing, or to file a statement of non-opposition, will be deemed a statement of non-opposition, and shall result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed; Reply, if any, shall be filed no later than April 11, 2012.(Becknal, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RICHARD MARTEL, 11 12 Plaintiff, CIV. NO. S-11-3040 GEB CKD PS vs. 13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ORDER 14 Defendants. 15 16 / Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, referred to the undersigned pursuant to 17 Local Rule 302(c)(21). Defendant’s motion to dismiss is presently noticed for hearing on the 18 March 28, 2012 law and motion calendar of the undersigned. Opposition to a motion, or a 19 statement of non-opposition thereto, must be filed fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing 20 date. E.D. Cal. L. R. 230(c). Court records reflect that plaintiff failed to timely file opposition or 21 a statement of non-opposition to the motion. 22 Failure to comply with the Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition by the 23 Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the 24 Court.” E.D. Cal. L. R. 11-110; see Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). 25 Additionally, “[n]o party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments 26 if written opposition to the motion has not been timely filed.” E.D. Cal. L. R. 230(c). Pro se 1 1 litigants are bound by the rules of procedure, even though pleadings are liberally construed in 2 their favor. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987); Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 3 1364-65 (9th Cir. 1986). The Local Rules specifically provide that cases of persons appearing in 4 propria persona who fail to comply with the Federal and Local Rules are subject to dismissal, 5 judgment by default, and other appropriate sanctions. E.D. Cal. L. R. 183. 6 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. The hearing date of March 28, 2012 is vacated. Hearing on defendant’s 8 motion is continued to April 25, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. in courtroom no. 26. 9 2. Plaintiff is directed to file opposition, if any, to the motion, or a statement of 10 non-opposition thereto, no later than April 4, 2012. Failure to file opposition and appear at 11 hearing, or to file a statement of non-opposition, will be deemed a statement of non-opposition, 12 and shall result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 13 3. Reply, if any, shall be filed no later than April 11, 2012. 14 Dated: March 15, 2012 15 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 4 19 martel.nop.con 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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?