Benyamini v. Swett et al
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 12/3/15 ORDERING that within 21 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file either an opposition to defendants motions (ECF No. 69 ) or a statement of no opposition. The December 9, 2 015 hearing on defendants' motions (ECF No. 69 ) is VACATED. Good cause appearing, the December 31, 2015 deadline for the filing of defendants dispositive motion is vacated. After defendants motions (ECF No. 69 ) are submitted for decision, the court will set a new deadline for defendants filing of a dispositive motion.(Dillon, M)
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 30, 2015, defendants moved to compel plaintiff’s responses to
discovery and to modify the scheduling order. ECF No. 69. Defendants noticed their motion for
December 9, 2015. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or a statement of no opposition to
In cases in which one party is incarcerated and proceeding without counsel, motions
ordinarily are submitted on the record without oral argument. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule, 230(l);
see also ECF No. 35 (providing that discovery disputes in this action should be briefed in
accordance with Local Rule 230(l)). “Opposition, if any, to the granting of the motion shall be
served and filed with the Clerk by the responding party not more than eighteen (18) days, plus
three (3) days for mailing or electronic service, after the date of service of the motion.” Id. A
responding party’s failure “to file written opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may
be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion and may result in the
imposition of sanctions.” Id.
Furthermore, a party’s failure to comply with any order or with the Local Rules “may be
grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the
inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. The court may recommend that an action be
dismissed with or without prejudice, as appropriate, if a party disobeys an order or the Local
Rules. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court did not abuse
discretion in dismissing pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing to obey an order to re-file an
amended complaint to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d
1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for pro se plaintiff’s failure to comply with local rule
regarding notice of change of address affirmed).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Within 21 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file either an opposition to
defendants’ motions (ECF No. 69) or a statement of no opposition. Failure to comply
with this order may result in a recommendation of dismissal.
2. The December 9, 2015 hearing on defendants’ motions (ECF No. 69) is vacated.
3. Good cause appearing, the December 31, 2015 deadline for the filing of defendants’
dispositive motion is vacated. After defendants’ motions (ECF No. 69) are submitted
for decision, the court will set a new deadline for defendants’ filing of a dispositive
DATED: December 3, 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?