Fielding v. Amtrak
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 9/8/2017 ORDERING 4 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Hearing is Reset for 10/4/2017 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4 before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire; Opposition due by 9/20/2017; the Clerk of Court shall serve upon plaintiff defendant's motion to dismiss. (Reader, L)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 2:17-cv-01614 TLN AC (PS)
Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The action was accordingly referred to the
undersigned by Local Rule 302(c)(21). On September 7, 2017, plaintiff filed a document
designated a motion to compel. ECF No. 7. Upon review of the content of this motion, the
undersigned construes it as a request for service. Plaintiff asserts that she has not received a copy
of defendant’s motion to dismiss, which was filed on August 8, 2017 at ECF No. 4. ECF No. 7 at
1-2. In order to ensure plaintiff’s receipt of the motion, the Clerk of Court is hereby ORDERED
to serve defendant’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 4, upon plaintiff.
Local Rule 230(c) provides that opposition to the granting of a motion must be filed
fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date. The Local Rule further provides that “[n]o
party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments if written opposition
to the motion has not been timely filed by that party.” In addition, Local Rule 230(j) provides
that failure to appear may be deemed withdrawal of opposition to the motion or may result in
sanctions. Finally, Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules “may be
grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the
inherent power of the Court.”
In order to allow plaintiff adequate time to respond to the motion to dismiss, the court will
continue the motion hearing. The hearing will now take place on October 4, 2017 at 10 a.m. At
this hearing the court will address the motion to dismiss as well as discuss some of the basic
aspects of appearing in federal court as a self-represented litigant. Plaintiff has indicated that she
is unsure of what to do with the consent or decline magistrate jurisdiction form. The court will
discuss the difference between magistrate judges and district court judges at the hearing on
defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Finally, plaintiff indicates that she is seeking attorney representation. The court notes that
until representation is secured, plaintiff is required to adhere to all deadlines and follow the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Local Rules, located at
-1-2017.pdf, as a self-represented. See Local Rule 183(a).
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The motion hearing date of September 27, 2017 is CONTINUED to October, 4,
2017 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 4;
2. Plaintiff shall file an opposition – or a Statement of Non-Opposition – to the
motion, no later than September 20, 2017. Failure to file an opposition or to
appear at the hearing will be deemed as a statement of non-opposition and shall
result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 41(b); and
3. The Clerk of Court shall serve upon plaintiff defendant’s motion to dismiss,
located at ECF No. 4.
DATED: September 8, 2017
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?