Pfarr v. Chapa-De Indian Health Pro

Filing 6

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 7/12/2018. The hearing on defendants motion to dismiss 4 is continued to 8/15/2018 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (EFB) before Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan. Plaintiff shall s how cause, in writing, no later than 8/1/2018, why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to defendants motion to dismiss. Plaintiff shall also file an opposition to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, no later than 8/1/2018. Defendant may file a reply to plaintiffs opposition, if any, on or before 8/8/2018. (Cannarozzi, N)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TIM PFARR,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:18-cv-1710-MCE-EFB PS

v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

15

Defendant.

16
17

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1),

18

which is noticed for hearing on July 18, 2018.1 ECF No. 4. Court records reflect plaintiff has not

19

filed an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion.

20

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

21

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

22

than fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date or, in this instance, by July 5, 2018. See

23

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C). Local Rule 230(c) further provides that “[n]o party will be entitled to

24

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

25

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

26

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

27
28

1

This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned pursuant to
Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

Cir. 1987).

8

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

9

1. The hearing on defendant’s motions to dismiss (ECF No. 4) is continued to August 15,

10

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

11

2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than August 1, 2018, why sanctions

12

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

13

defendant’s motion to dismiss.

14
15

3. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto,
no later than August 1, 2018.

16

4. Failure to file an opposition to the motion will be deemed a statement of non-

17

opposition thereto, and may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack of

18

prosecution and/or for failure to comply with court orders and this court’s Local Rules. See Fed.

19

R. Civ. P. 41(b).

20

5. Defendant may file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition, if any, on or before August 8,

21

2018.

22

DATED: July 12, 2018.

23
24
25
26
27
28
2