Williams et al v. Canning et al

Filing 13

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/19/13 ORDERING that Plaintiffs show cause in writing within twenty-one 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.(Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

SANDRA WILLIAMS, and KAREN
BURTON,

13
14

Plaintiffs,

No. 2:13-cv-0631 GEB DAD PS

ORDER

v.

15

JOSEPH M. CANNING, et al.,

16

Defendants.

17
18

Plaintiffs Sandra Williams and Karen Burton are proceeding pro se in this action.

19

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

20

all purposes encompassed by that rule.

21

This matter came before the court on July 19, 2013, for hearing of defendants’

22

motion to dismiss. Joseph M. Canning, Esq. appeared for the defendants, including himself.

23

Despite being served with notice of the motion neither plaintiff filed written opposition or a

24

statement of non-opposition to the motion to dismiss and neither plaintiff appeared at the hearing

25

of the motion, nor did anyone appear on behalf of either plaintiff.

26

Pursuant to the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the

27

Eastern District of California, opposition, if any, to the granting of a motion “shall be in writing

28

and shall be filed and served not less than fourteen (14) days preceding the noticed (or continued)
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

under the Local Rules. Id.

12

Here, plaintiffs have failed to comply with Local Rule 230. In light of plaintiffs’

13

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

14

show good cause for their conduct along with a final opportunity to oppose defendants’ motion.

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

case be dismissed.1

19

Dated: July 19, 2013

20
21
22

DAD:6
Ddad1\orders.pro se\williams0631.osc.docx

23
24
25
26

1

For the reasons addressed on the record at the hearing, the Clerk of the Court is directed to
serve a copy of this order on plaintiff Sandra Williams both at her address of record and at the
following address obtained by counsel for defendants:

27
28

5912 Winterham Way
Sacramento, CA 95823
2