Smith v. Langford et al

Filing 15

ORDER and ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 2/10/2015 ORDERING 9 the hearing date of 2/19/2015 is VACATED; Plaintiff shall show cause in writing, no later than 2/26/2015, 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 2/26/2015. (Reader, L)

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