Wilburn v. Bratcher et al

Filing 72

ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 6/16/2016 ORDERING The hearing date of 6/23/2016 is VACATED, and may, or may not, be reset after 6/30/2016. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than 6/30/2016 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 6/30/2016.(Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TERRENCE LAMAR WILBURN,

12

No. 2:15-cv-00699 TLN GGH

Plaintiff,

13

v.

ORDER AND

14

GARREN BRATCHER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

16
17

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local

18

Rule 302(c)(21). Defendant Garren Bratcher’s motion to dismiss is presently noticed for hearing

19

on the June 23, 2016 law and motion calendar of the undersigned. Opposition to motions, or a

20

statement of non-opposition thereto, must be filed fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing

21

date. E.D. Cal. L. R. 230(c). Court records reflect that plaintiff failed to file opposition or a

22

statement of non-opposition to the motion on or before June 9, 2016 when it was due.
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

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

9

1. The hearing date of June 23, 2016 is vacated, and may, or may not, be reset after June

10

30, 2016.

11

2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than June 30, 2016 why sanctions should

12

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

13

pending motion.

14

3. Plaintiff is directed to file opposition, if any, to the motion, or a statement of non-

15

opposition thereto, no later than June 30, 2016. Failure to file opposition and appear at hearing, if

16

reset, or to file a statement of non-opposition, will be deemed a statement of non-opposition, and

17

shall result in a recommendation that certain defendants, or this entire action be dismissed.

18

Dated: June 16, 2016

19

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

20

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25

GGH:wil0699.amm

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