Benyamini v. Swett et al
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 03/11/15 ordering the hearing on defendants' motion for summary judgment is continued to 4/08/15 at 10:00 a.m. in courtroom 8. Plaintiff shall show cause in writing, no later than 3/25/15, why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the pending motion. Plaintiff shall file an opposition, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, no later than 3/25/15. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiff's opposition, if any, on or before 4/01/15. (Plummer, M)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 2:13-cv-735-KJM-EFB P
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
M. SWETT, et al.,
On February 13, 2015 defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that
plaintiff failed to properly exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. ECF No. 37.
Defendants noticed the hearing on their motion for March 18, 2015. Id.
Court records reflect that plaintiff has not filed an opposition or statement of non-
opposition to the motion for summary judgment. 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 March 4, 2015. 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, good cause appearing, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The hearing on defendants’ motion for summary judgment is continued to April 8,
2015 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 8.
2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than March 25, 2015, why sanctions
should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to
the pending motion.
3. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto,
no later than March 25, 2015.
4. Failure of plaintiff to file an opposition to the motion will be deemed a statement of
non-opposition thereto, and may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack
of prosecution and/or for failure to comply with court orders and this court’s Local Rules. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
5. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition, if any, on or before April 1, 2015.
DATED: March 11, 2015.
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?