Benyamini v. Swett et al

Filing 103

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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT BENYAMINI, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:13-cv-735-KJM-EFB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER M. SWETT, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 13, 2017, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF 19 No. 98. That motion was noticed for hearing on November 15, 2017. Plaintiff has not filed an 20 opposition or a statement of no opposition to defendants’ motion. 21 Local Rule 230(c) provides that opposition to the granting of a motion, or a statement of 22 non-opposition thereto, must be served upon the moving party, and filed with this court, no later 23 than fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date or, in this instance, by November 1, 2017. 24 Local Rule 230(c) further provides that “[n]o party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a 25 motion at oral arguments if opposition to the motion has not been timely filed by that party.” 26 Local Rule 183, governing persons appearing in pro se, provides that failure to comply 27 with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules may be grounds for dismissal, 28 judgment by default, or other appropriate sanctions. Local Rule 110 provides that failure to 1 1 comply with the Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 2 sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” See also 3 Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules 4 is a proper ground for dismissal.”). Pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure, even 5 though pleadings are liberally construed in their favor. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th 6 Cir. 1987). 7 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. Within twenty-one days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file either an opposition 9 to defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 98) or a statement of no opposition to the 10 same. Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be 11 dismissed without prejudice; 12 13 14 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, 15 the November 15, 2017 hearing is VACATED. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The matter will stand 16 submitted for decision after the filing of defendants’ reply, if any. 17 DATED: November 8, 2017. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?