RamSing v. Sacramento County Superior Court

Filing 18

ORDER and ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 11/29/2018 DENYING 16 Motion for Default Judgment without prejudice to its renewal upon properly noticing the motion for hearing in compliance with the court's loca l rules. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than 12/14/2018, why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to notice his motion for hearing. Failure of plaintiff to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution and/or for failure to comply with court orders and this court's Local Rules. (Huang, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RAM RAMSING,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:17-cv-2631-MCE-EFB PS
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR COURT,
Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment against defendant Sacramento Superior

18

Court, but failed to notice the motion for hearing as required by the court’s local rules. ECF No.

19

16; see E.D. L.R. Cal. 230(b). Accordingly, he was ordered to contact chambers to obtain

20

available civil law and motion hearing dates. Plaintiff has not complied with that order, nor has

21

since properly noticed his motion for default judgment for hearing.

22

Local Rule 230(b) requires provides that “all motions shall be noticed on the motion

23

calendar of the assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge . . . not less than 28 days after service and

24

filing of the motion.” Local Rule 183, governing persons appearing in pro se, provides that

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” See also
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

Cir. 1987).

5

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

6

1. Plaintiff’s defectively filed motion for default judgment (ECF No. 16) is denied

7

without prejudice to its renewal upon properly noticing the motion for hearing in compliance with

8

the court’s local rules.

9

2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than December 14, 2018, why sanctions

10

should not be imposed for failure to notice his motion for hearing as required by Local Rule

11

230(b).

12

3. Failure of plaintiff to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions,

13

including a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution and/or for

14

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

15

DATED: November 29, 2018.

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