Antolin v. Latham et al

Filing 15

ORDER AND ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 10/19/15 ORDERING that the hearing on defendant's 5 6 Motions to Dismiss is CONTINUED to 11/18/2015 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (EFB) before Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan; plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE in writing by 11/04/15 why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the pending motions; plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motions, or a statement of non-opposition, by 11/04/15; defendants may file a reply by 11/10/15. (Benson, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

JESSE ANTOLIN,

11
12
13

No. 2:15-cv-1730-KJM-EFB PS

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

REBEKAH LATHAM, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16
17
18

On August 21, 2015, defendants moved to dismiss this action, and noticed their motions
for hearing on October 21, 2015. ECF Nos. 5, 6.
Court records reflect that plaintiff has not filed an opposition or statement of non-

19

opposition to the motions.1 Local Rule 230(c) provides that opposition to the granting of a

20

motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, must be served upon the moving party, and filed

21

with this court, no later than fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date or, in this instance,

22

by October 7, 2015. Local Rule 230(c) further provides that “[n]o party will be entitled to be

23

heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments if opposition to the motion has not been timely

24

filed by that party.”

25
26
27
28

1

Defendants filed notices with the court indicating that the motions were served on
plaintiff at his address of record, but were returned with the Postal Service’s endorsement “Return
to Sender, Unable to Forward.” ECF No. 12, 13. Although defendants’ motions were returned,
plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court and parties
apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents
at the record address of the party is fully effective.
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

Cir. 1987).

10

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

11

1. The hearing on defendants’ motion for dismiss (ECF Nos. 5, 6) is continued to

12

November 18, 2015.

13

2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than November 4, 2015, why sanctions

14

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

15

the pending motions.

16
17

3. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motions, or a statement of non-opposition
thereto, no later than November 4, 2015.

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

5. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition, if any, on or before November 10,

23

2015.

24

DATED: October 19, 2015.

25
26
27
28
2