Benyamini v. Swett et al
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 11/8/2017 ORDERING within 21 days, plaintiff shall file either an opposition to defendants' 98 motion for summary judgment or a statement of no opposition to the same. Defendants may submit a reply within 7 days of plaintiff's filing, if any. The court finds that oral argument would not be of material assistance and, therefore, the 11/15/2017 hearing is VACATED. The matter will stand submitted for decision after the filing of defendant's reply, if any. (Yin, K)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 2:13-cv-735-KJM-EFB P
M. SWETT, et al.,
Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 13, 2017, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF
No. 98. That motion was noticed for hearing on November 15, 2017. Plaintiff has not filed an
opposition or a statement of no opposition to defendants’ motion.
Local Rule 230(c) provides that opposition to the granting of a motion, or a statement of
non-opposition thereto, must be served upon the moving party, and filed with this court, no later
than fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date or, in this instance, by November 1, 2017.
Local Rule 230(c) further provides that “[n]o party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a
motion at oral arguments if opposition to the motion has not been timely filed by that party.”
Local Rule 183, governing persons appearing in pro se, provides that failure to comply
with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules may be grounds for dismissal,
judgment by default, or other appropriate sanctions. Local Rule 110 provides that failure to
comply with the Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all
sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” See also
Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules
is a proper ground for dismissal.”). Pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure, even
though pleadings are liberally construed in their favor. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Within twenty-one days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file either an opposition
to defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 98) or a statement of no opposition to the
same. Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be
dismissed without prejudice;
2. If plaintiff submits a response to defendants’ motion within the foregoing deadline,
defendants may submit a reply thereto within seven days of plaintiff’s filing; and
3. The court finds that oral argument would not be of material assistance and, therefore,
the November 15, 2017 hearing is VACATED. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The matter will stand
submitted for decision after the filing of defendants’ reply, if any.
DATED: November 8, 2017.
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?