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)

Download PDF
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

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?