Heinemann v. Williams

Filing 37

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/1/13 ORDERING plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE in writing within 21 days of the date of this order why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Failure to timely file the required writing will result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

THEODORE HEINEMANN,

11

Plaintiff,

12

vs.

13

No. 2:12-cv-2520 LKK DAD PS

M. WILLIAMS,

14

Defendant.

15
16

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

/
This action was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District

17

of California to this court on October 9, 2012. Plaintiff Theodore Heineman is proceeding pro

18

se. The action has therefore been referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21)

19

for all purposes encompassed by that rule.

20

This matter came before the court on February 1, 2013, for hearing of defendant’s

21

motion to dismiss. Troy Overton, Esq. appeared for defendant M. Williams. Despite being

22

served with notice of the motion plaintiff did not file written opposition or a statement of non-

23

opposition to the motion to dismiss and did not appear at the hearing of the motion, nor did

24

anyone appear on his behalf.

25
26

Pursuant to the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California, opposition, if any, to the granting of a motion “shall be in writing
1

1

and shall be filed and served not less than fourteen (14) days preceding the noticed (or continued)

2

hearing date.” Local Rule 230(c). “No party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a

3

motion at oral arguments if opposition to the motion has not been timely filed by that party.” Id.

4

Failure to appear at the hearing of a properly noticed motion may be deemed withdrawal of any

5

written opposition that was timely filed, in the discretion of the court, or may result in the

6

imposition of sanctions. Local Rule 230(i). Failure of a party to comply with the Local Rules or

7

any order of the court “may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions

8

authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. Any

9

individual representing himself or herself without an attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of

10

Civil Procedure, the Local Rules, and all applicable law. Local Rule 183(a). Failure to comply

11

with applicable rules and law may be grounds for dismissal or any other sanction appropriate

12

under the Local Rules. Id.

13

Here, plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Rule 230. In light of plaintiff’s pro

14

se status and in the interests of justice, the court will provide plaintiff with an opportunity to

15

show good cause for his conduct along with a final opportunity to oppose defendant’s motion.

16

Accordingly, the court HEREBY ORDERS that plaintiff show cause in writing

17

within twenty-one days of the date of this order why this case should not be dismissed for lack of

18

prosecution. Failure to timely file the required writing will result in a recommendation that this

19

case be dismissed.1

20

DATED: February 1, 2013.

21
22

DAD:6
Ddad1\orders.pro se\heinemann2520.osc

23
24

1

The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on plaintiff both at his
address of record and at the following address obtained by counsel for defendant:

25
26

57293 18th Avenue
Grand Junction, Michigan 49056
2