Clark v. County of Sacramento et al

Filing 13

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 2/3/16 ORDERING that the hearing on defendants' 11 motion to dismiss is continued to 3/2/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (EFB) before Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan. Plaintiff shall sh ow cause, in writing, no later than 2/17/2016, why sanctions should not be imposed for the failure to timely file an opposition or a statement of non-oppositionto the pending motion. Plaintiffs shall file an opposition to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, no later than 2/17/2016. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiff's opposition, if any, on or before 2/24/2016. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FELICIA CLARK,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:15-cv-1211-JAM-EFB PS (TEMP)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Defendants moved to dismiss this action and noticed their motion for hearing on February

18

10, 2016. ECF No. 11. Court records reflect that plaintiff has not filed a timely opposition or

19

statement of non-opposition to the motion.

20

Local Rule 230(c) provides that opposition to the granting of a motion, or a statement of

21

non-opposition thereto, must be served upon the moving party, and filed with this court, no later

22

than fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date. Local Rule 230(c) further provides that

23

“[n]o party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments if opposition to

24

the motion has not been timely filed by that party.” Local Rule 183, governing persons appearing

25

in pro se, provides that failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local

26

Rules may be grounds for dismissal, judgment by default, or other appropriate sanctions. Local

27

Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition by

28

the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of
1

1

the Court.” See also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Failure to follow a

2

district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.”). Pro se litigants are bound by the

3

rules of procedure, even though pleadings are liberally construed in their favor. King v. Atiyeh,

4

814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).

5

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

6

1. The hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 11) is continued to March 2,

7

2016.

8
9
10

2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than February 17, 2016, why sanctions
should not be imposed for the failure to timely file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition
to the pending motion.1

11
12

3. Plaintiffs shall file an opposition to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition
thereto, no later than February 17, 2016.

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

5. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition, if any, on or before February 24,

18

2016.

19

DATED: February 3, 2016.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Alternatively, if plaintiff wishes to dismiss this action, he may do so by filing a notice of
voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2