Nguy v. County of Yolo, California et al

Filing 32

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 5/8/14 ORDERING that the hearing on all currently pending MOTIONS to DISMISS 5 , 6 and 17 is CONTINUED to 6/11/2014 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (EFB) before Magistrate Judge Edmun d F. Brennan. Plaintiff shall Show Cause in writing, no later than 5/28/2014, why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to Defendant Taylor's Motion. Plaintiff shall file an opp osition to defendant Taylor's MOTION, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, no later than 5/28/14. Defendant Taylor may file a reply to Plaintiff's opposition, if any, on or before 6/4/14. Status Conference currently set for 6/18/14, is CONTINUED to 9/17/2014. The parties shall file status reports not later than fourteen days. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DINH NGUY,

12
13
14
15
16
17

No. 2:14-cv-229-MCE-EFB PS
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

COUNTY OF YOLO; SUPERIOR
COURT OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR THE
COUNTY OF YOLO; DANIEL P.
McGUIRE; JEFF STONE; MARVIN C.
MARX; JOHN C. ORCUTT; WENDY A.
TAYLOR; WILLIAM MARDER,

18

Defendants.

19
20

Defendants Daniel McGuire and John Orcutt moved to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint on

21

February 14, 2014. ECF Nos. 5, 6.1 The hearing on their motions was originally noticed for

22

March 20, 2014. Because plaintiff failed to timely file an opposition to the motions, he was

23

ordered to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition by April 16, 2014, and to show cause,

24

by the same date, why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or

25

statement of non-opposition. ECF No. 16. The court also continued the hearing on defendants

26
27

1

This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21).

28
1

1

McGuire and Orcutt’s motions to May 14, 2014. ECF Nos. 16, 25. Plaintiff timely filed a

2

response to the court’s order to show cause, in which plaintiff addresses the merits of defendants

3

McGuire and Orcutt’s motions. ECF No. 19. Plaintiff also filed an opposition and motion to

4

strike defendant Orcutt’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 20, and a motion to strike defendant

5

McGuire’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 21.

6

However, on April 7, 2014, defendant Wendy A. Taylor filed a motion to dismiss the

7

complaint for failure to state a claim. ECF No. 17. The hearing on her motion was noticed for

8

May 14, 2014. Id. While plaintiff has now responded to defendants McGuire and Orcutt’s

9

motions, court records reflect that plaintiff has not filed an opposition or statement of non-

10

opposition to defendant Taylor’s motion to dismiss. Local Rule 230(c) provides that opposition

11

to the granting of a motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, must be served upon the

12

moving party, and filed with this court, no later than fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing

13

date or, in this instance, by April 30, 2014. Local Rule 230(c) further provides that “[n]o party

14

will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments if opposition to the motion

15

has not been timely filed by that party.”

16

Local Rule 183, governing persons appearing in pro se, provides that failure to comply

17

with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules may be grounds for dismissal,

18

judgment by default, or other appropriate sanctions. Local Rule 110 provides that failure to

19

comply with the Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all

20

sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” See also

21

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules

22

is a proper ground for dismissal.”). Pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure, even

23

though pleadings are liberally construed in their favor. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th

24

Cir. 1987).

25

Accordingly, good cause appearing, it is hereby ORDERED that:

26

1. The hearing on all currently pending motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 5, 6, 17) is

27

continued to June 11, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 8.

28

/////
2

1

2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than May 28, 2014, why sanctions

2

should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to

3

defendant Taylor’s motion.

4
5

3. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to defendant Taylor’s motion, or a statement of nonopposition thereto, no later than May 28, 2014.

6

4. Failure of plaintiff to file an opposition to the motion will be deemed a statement of

7

non-opposition thereto, and may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack

8

of prosecution and/or for failure to comply with court orders and this court’s Local Rules. See

9

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

10
11
12

5. Defendant Taylor may file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition, if any, on or before June 4,
2014.
6. The Status Conference currently set for June 18, 2014, is continued to September 17,

13

2014. The parties shall file status reports not later than fourteen days. See ECF No. 3.

14

DATED: May 8, 2014.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3