Smith v. Langford et al
Filing
14
ORDER and ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 2/10/15: The hearing date of February 19, 2015 is vacated. Plaintiff shall show cause in writing, no later than February 26, 2015, why sanctions should not be imposed for failure timely to file opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the pending motion. Plaintiff is directed to file opposition, if any, to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, no later than February 26, 2015. (Kaminski, H)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JEFFREY-THOMAS: SMITH,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:14-cv-1916 JAM GGH PS
v.
ORDER AND
MATTHEW LANGFORD, et al.,
15
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local
17
18
Rule 302(c)(21). Defendant Hewitt Enterprises, Inc.’s, (dba LJ’s Towing) motion to dismiss is
19
presently noticed for hearing on the February 19, 2015, law and motion calendar of the
20
undersigned. Opposition to motions, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, must be filed
21
fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date. E.D. Cal. L. R. 230(c). Court records reflect
22
that plaintiff failed to file opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion.
Failure to comply with the Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition by the Court of
23
24
any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.”
25
E.D. Cal. L. R. 110; see Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Additionally, “[n]o
26
party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments if written opposition
27
///
28
///
1
1
to the motion has not been timely filed.” E.D. Cal. L. R. 230(c).1 Pro se litigants are bound by
2
the rules of procedure, even though pleadings are liberally construed in their favor. King v.
3
Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa
4
County, 693 F.3d 896, 925 (9th Cir. 2012); Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364-65 (9th
5
Cir.1986). The Local Rules specifically provide that cases of persons appearing in propria
6
persona who fail to comply with the Federal and Local Rules are subject to dismissal, judgment
7
by default, and other appropriate sanctions. E.D. Cal. L. R. 183.
8
9
Plaintiff has been previously warned of the consequences of failure to comply with the
Local Rules in regard to the CHP defendants. If plaintiff is unable to meet court deadlines, he is
10
required to file a request for extension of time. See E.D. Cal. L. R. 144. Ex parte requests for
11
extensions of time are usually only granted with the first such request. Id., subd. (c). Plaintiff is
12
informed that failure to request extensions in future or seek an extension on stipulation will result
13
in sanctions, including monetary sanctions.
14
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
15
1. The hearing date of February 19, 2015 is vacated.2
16
2. Plaintiff shall show cause in writing, no later than February 26, 2015, why sanctions
17
should not be imposed for failure timely to file opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the
18
pending motion.
19
3. Plaintiff is directed to file opposition, if any, to the motion, or a statement of non-
20
opposition thereto, no later than February 26, 2015. Failure to file opposition, or to file a
21
statement of non-opposition, will be deemed a statement of non-opposition, and shall result in a
22
recommendation that this action be dismissed.
23
Dated: February 10, 2015
24
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
25
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
26
27
28
1
Moreover, failure to appear at hearing may be deemed withdrawal of opposition to a motion or
may result in sanctions. E.D. Cal. L. R. 230(i).
2
If the court deems oral argument is needed, it will reschedule the hearing at a later date.
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?