Harvey v. City of South Lake Tahoe et al

Filing 24

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 6/14/12: Motion Hearing as to 19 Motion to Dismiss reset for 7/17/2012 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24 (EFB) before Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan. Plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE by 7 /2/2012 why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition to the pending motions; Response to the motion due no later than 7/2/12; Initial Scheduling Conference set for 11/14/2012 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24 (EFB) before Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan. Status reports due by 10/31/12. (Manzer, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

DANIEL THOMAS HARVEY,

11
12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,

No. 2:12-cv-526-KJM-EFB PS

vs.
CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE;
DOUGLAS COUNTY; EL DORADO
COUNTY; ROBERT K. PRISCARO;
JAKE HERMINGHAUS; SHANNON
LANEY; ANDREW EISSINGER,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

16

Defendants.

17
18

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

19

Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On May 8,

20

2012, defendants County of El Dorado and Robert K. Priscaro re-noticed their motion to dismiss

21

plaintiff’s complaint for hearing before the undersigned on June 20, 2012.1 Dckt. No. 19.

22
23

Court records reflect that plaintiff has filed neither an opposition nor a statement of
non-opposition to the motion. Local Rule 230(c) provides that opposition to the granting of a

24
25
26

1

Also pending before the court are motions to dismiss filed by defendants City of South
Lake Tahoe, Jake Herminghaus, Shannon Laney, and Andrew Eissinger, Dckt. No. 4, and by
defendant Douglas County, Nevada, Dckt. No. 8. See also Dckt. No. 17 at 3.
1

1

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

2

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

3

instance, by June 6, 2012. Local Rule 230(c) further provides that “[n]o party will be entitled to

4

be heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments if opposition to the motion has not been

5

timely filed by that party.”

6

Local Rule 183, governing persons appearing in pro se, provides that failure to comply

7

with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules may be ground for dismissal,

8

judgment by default, or other appropriate sanction. Local Rule 110 provides that failure to

9

comply with the Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all

10

sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” See also

11

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules

12

is a proper ground for dismissal.”). Pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure, even

13

though pleadings are liberally construed in their favor. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th

14

Cir. 1987).

15

Accordingly, good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

16

1. The hearing on defendants County of El Dorado and Robert K. Priscaro’s motion to

17
18

dismiss, Dckt. No. 19, is continued to Tuesday, July 17, 2012.
2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than July 2, 2012, why sanctions should

19

not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the

20

pending motions.

21
22
23

3. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition
thereto, no later than July 2, 2012.
4. Failure of plaintiff to file an opposition to the motion will be deemed a statement of

24

non-opposition thereto, and may result in a recommendation that any or all of the pending

25

motions be granted or that this action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to follow court

26

orders and/or for lack of prosecution under Rule 41(b).
2

1
2
3
4
5
6

5. Defendants County of El Dorado and Robert K. Priscaro may file a reply to plaintiff’s
opposition, if any, on or before July 9, 2012.
6. The status (pretrial scheduling) conference currently set for August 22, 2012, Dckt.
Nos. 18 and 21, is continued to November 14, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 24.
7. On or before October 31, 2012, the parties shall file status reports, as provided in the
undersigned May 7, 2012 order, Dckt. No. 18.

7

SO ORDERED.

8

DATED: June 14, 2012

9

/s/ Edmund F. Brennan
EDMUND F. BRENNAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3