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)

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