Von Brincken et al v. Royal et al

Filing 7

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 12/3/2012 ORDERING that the hearing date of 12/12/2012 is VACATED. Hearing on defendants' 4 motion is CONTINUED to 1/9/2013 at 10:00 a.m. in courtroom no. 26. Plaintiff is directed to fi le opposition, if any, to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, no later than 12/26/2012. 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 1/2/2013. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SHELLEY VON BRINCKEN,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,

NO. 2:12-cv-2599-MCE-CKD PS

vs.
KEITH ROYAL, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
/

15
16

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action which was referred to the undersigned

17

pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). Defendants’ motion to dismiss is presently set for hearing on

18

December 12, 2012 before the undersigned. Dkt. 4. Opposition to a motion, or a statement of

19

non-opposition thereto, must be filed fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date. E.D. Cal.

20

L. R. 230(c). A review of the docket reveals that plaintiff has yet to file an opposition or a

21

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. 110; see Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Additionally,

25

“[n]o party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments if written

26

opposition to the motion has not been timely filed.” E.D. Cal. L. R. 230(c). Pro se litigants are
1

1

bound by the rules of procedure, even though pleadings are liberally construed in their favor.

2

King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987); Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364-65

3

(9th Cir. 1986). The Local Rules specifically provide that cases of persons appearing in propria

4

persona who fail to comply with the Federal and Local Rules are subject to dismissal, judgment

5

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 December 12, 2012 is VACATED. Hearing on

8

defendants’ motion is continued to January 9, 2013 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 December 26, 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 January 2, 2013.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 3, 2012

16

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
CKD:9

22
VonBrincken2599.VacHrg.reset.wpd

23
24
25
26
2