Franklin v. County of Placer et al

Filing 50

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 9/10/2018 ORDERING that the hearing on defendants' 45 , 47 motions is CONTINUED to 10/31/2018 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (EFB) before Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan. Plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE, in writing, no later than 10/17/2018, why sanctionsshould not be imposed for failure to timely file oppositions or statements of non-opposition to defendants' motions. Plaintiff shall file oppositions to the motions, or statements of non-opposition thereto, no later than 10/17/2018. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiff's oppositions, if any, on or before 10/24/2018. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MIKE FRANKLIN,

12
13

No. 2:17-cv-2277-JAM-EFB PS

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

14

COUNTY OF PLACER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Defendants North Tahoe Fire Protection District, Todd Conradson, and Scott Sedgwick

18

have filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6), to

19

strike pursuant to Rule 12(f), and for a more definite statement pursuant to Rule 12(e). ECF No.

20

45. Defendants County of Placer, Edward Bonner, Christopher Cattran, William Doyle, Maria

21

Leftwich, Shane Mathias, Paul Nicholas, Ronald Scott Owens, and Jeffrey Winkler have also

22

moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). ECF No. 47. The motions are currently set for

23

hearing on September 19, 2018. ECF Nos. 45, 47.

24

Court records reflect that plaintiff has not filed an oppositions or statements of non-

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

by September 5, 2018. Local Rule 230(c) further provides that “[n]o party will be entitled to be
1

1

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

2

filed by that party.” Local Rule 183, governing persons appearing in pro se, provides that failure

3

to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules may be grounds for

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

Cir. 1987).

11

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

12

1. The hearing on defendants’ motions (ECF Nos. 45, 47) is continued to October 31,

13

2018 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 8.

14

2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than October 17, 2018, why sanctions

15

should not be imposed for failure to timely file oppositions or statements of non-opposition to

16

defendants’ motions.

17
18

3. Plaintiff shall file oppositions to the motions, or statements of non-opposition thereto,
no later than October 17, 2018.

19

4. Failure to file oppositions to the motions will be deemed as non-opposition thereto, and

20

may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution and/or for

21

failure to comply with court orders and this court’s Local Rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

22

5. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiff’s oppositions, if any, on or before October 24,

23

2018.

24

DATED: September 10, 2018.

25
26
27
28
2