Stephens v. County of Sacramento Department of Human Assistance of Northern California Welfare Division

Filing 13

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 1/13/2017 ORDERING the 10 Motion to Dismiss CONTINUED to 2/22/2017 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (EFB) before Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan. Plaintiff shall Show Cause, in writin g, no later than 2/8/2017 why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or a statement of non opposition. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition no later thank 2/8/2017. Failu re to file an opposition to the motion will be deemed a statement of nonopposition, and may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiff's opposition, if any on or before 2/15/2017. (Washington, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

REHEMA STEPHENS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

No. 2:16-cv-1849-JAM-EFB PS

v.

ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN
ASSISTANCE OF NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA WELFARE DIVISION,
Defendant.

17
18

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

19
20

Procedure 12(b)(6), and noticed the motion for hearing on January 25, 2017. ECF No. 10. Court

21

records reflect that plaintiff has not filed an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the

22

motion.

23

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

24

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

25

than fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date or, in this instance, by January 11, 2017.

26

Local Rule 230(c) further provides that “[n]o party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a

27

motion at oral arguments if opposition to the motion has not been timely filed by that party.”

28

/////
1

1

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

2

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules may be grounds for dismissal, judgment by

3

default, or other appropriate sanctions. Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the

4

Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by

5

statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” See also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d

6

52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for

7

dismissal.”). Pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure, even though pleadings are

8

liberally construed in their favor. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).

9

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

10
11

1. The hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 10) is continued to February
22, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 8.

12

2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than February 8, 2017, why sanctions

13

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

14

the pending motion.

15
16

3. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto,
no later than February 8, 2017.

17

4. Failure to file an opposition to the motion 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

5. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition, if any, on or before February 15,

22

2017.

23

DATED: January 13, 2017.

24
25
26
27
28
2