Benyamini v. Swett et al

Filing 70

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)

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 30, 2015, defendants moved to compel plaintiff’s responses to

19

discovery and to modify the scheduling order. ECF No. 69. Defendants noticed their motion for

20

December 9, 2015. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or a statement of no opposition to

21

defendants’ motions.

22

In cases in which one party is incarcerated and proceeding without counsel, motions

23

ordinarily are submitted on the record without oral argument. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule, 230(l);

24

see also ECF No. 35 (providing that discovery disputes in this action should be briefed in

25

accordance with Local Rule 230(l)). “Opposition, if any, to the granting of the motion shall be

26

served and filed with the Clerk by the responding party not more than eighteen (18) days, plus

27

three (3) days for mailing or electronic service, after the date of service of the motion.” Id. A

28

responding party’s failure “to file written opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may
1

1

be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion and may result in the

2

imposition of sanctions.” Id.

3

Furthermore, a party’s failure to comply with any order or with the Local Rules “may be

4

grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the

5

inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. The court may recommend that an action be

6

dismissed with or without prejudice, as appropriate, if a party disobeys an order or the Local

7

Rules. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court did not abuse

8

discretion in dismissing pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing to obey an order to re-file an

9

amended complaint to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d

10

1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for pro se plaintiff’s failure to comply with local rule

11

regarding notice of change of address affirmed).

12

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

13

1. Within 21 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file either an opposition to

14

defendants’ motions (ECF No. 69) or a statement of no opposition. Failure to comply

15

with this order may result in a recommendation of dismissal.

16

2. The December 9, 2015 hearing on defendants’ motions (ECF No. 69) is vacated.

17

3. Good cause appearing, the December 31, 2015 deadline for the filing of defendants’

18

dispositive motion is vacated. After defendants’ motions (ECF No. 69) are submitted

19

for decision, the court will set a new deadline for defendants’ filing of a dispositive

20

motion.

21

DATED: December 3, 2015.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2