McGee v. State of California et al

Filing 28

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 10/6/16, ORDERING that the hearing on the County of Sacramento and State of California's motions to dismiss 13 , 22 , is CONTINUED to 11/22/16 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 8. The hearing on defendant City of Sacramento's motion to declare plaintiff a vexatious litigant 9 , is CONTINUED to 11/22/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, n o later than 11/2/2016, why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the pending motions. Plaintiffs shall file an opposition to the motions, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, no later than 11/2/2016. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiff's opposition, if any, on or before 11/9/2016. (Kastilahn, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFFERSON A. McGEE, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:16-cv-1796-JAM-EFB PS Plaintiffs, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Defendants County of Sacramento and State of California filed motions to dismiss this 18 action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which are currently noticed for 19 hearing on October 19, 2016. ECF Nos. 13, 22, 25. Court records reflect that plaintiff has not 20 filed an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motions. 21 Local Rule 230(c) provides that opposition to the granting of a motion, or a statement of 22 non-opposition thereto, must be served upon the moving party, and filed with this court, no later 23 than fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date or, in this instance, by October 5, 2016. 24 Local Rule 230(c) further provides that “[n]o party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a 25 motion at oral arguments if opposition to the motion has not been timely filed by that party.” 26 Local Rule 183, governing persons appearing in pro se, provides that failure to comply with the 27 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules may be grounds for dismissal, judgment by 28 default, or other appropriate sanctions. Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the 1 1 Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by 2 statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” See also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 3 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for 4 dismissal.”). Pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure, even though pleadings are 5 liberally construed in their favor. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). 6 Accordingly, good cause appearing, it is hereby ORDERED that: 7 1. The hearing on the County of Sacramento and State of California’s motions to dismiss 8 (ECF Nos. 13, 22) is continued to November 22, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 8. 9 2. The hearing on defendant City of Sacramento’s motion to declare plaintiff a vexatious 10 litigant (ECF No. 9), which is currently set for October 19, 2016, is continued to November 22, 11 2016 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 8. 12 3. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than November 2, 2016, why sanctions 13 should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to 14 the pending motions. 15 16 4. Plaintiffs shall file an opposition to the motions, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, no later than November 2, 2016. 17 5. Failure to file an opposition to the motions will be deemed a statement of non- 18 opposition thereto, and may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack of 19 prosecution and/or for failure to comply with court orders and this court’s Local Rules. See Fed. 20 R. Civ. P. 41(b). 21 6. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition, if any, on or before November 9, 22 2016. 23 DATED: October 6, 2016. 24 25 26 27 28 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?