Hogue v. Sacramento Police Department

Filing 18

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 10/30/2018 ORDERING Plaintiff to file either an opposition or a statement of no opposition to 17 Motion to Dismiss within 21 days of the date of this order. (Henshaw, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BRIAN HOGUE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:17-cv-0434-EFB P

v.

ORDER

SACRAMENTO POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

19

U.S.C. § 1983. On September 21, 2018, defendant filed a motion to dismiss. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

20

12(b)(6). Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to defendant’s

21

motion.

22

In cases in which one party is incarcerated and proceeding without counsel,

23

motions ordinarily are submitted on the record without oral argument. Local Rule 230(l).

24

“Opposition, if any, to the granting of the motion shall be served and filed by the responding

25

party not more than twenty-one (21), days after the date of service of the motion.” Id. A

26

responding party’s failure “to file an opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be

27

deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion and may result in the imposition

28

of sanctions.” Id.
1

1

Furthermore, a party’s failure to comply with any order or with the Local Rules “may be

2

grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or

3

within the inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. The court may recommend

4

that an action be dismissed with or without prejudice, as appropriate, if a party disobeys an order

5

or the Local Rules. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court did

6

not abuse discretion in dismissing pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing to obey an order to re-

7

file an amended complaint to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Carey v. King, 856

8

F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for pro se plaintiff’s failure to comply with local

9

rule regarding notice of change of address affirmed).

10

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, within 21 days of the date of this order,

11

plaintiff shall file either an opposition to the motion or a statement of no opposition. Failure to

12

comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without

13

prejudice.

14

DATED: October 30, 2018.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2