(PS) Parlante v. American River College
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 8/1/2022 CONTINUING the Motion Hearing to 9/8/2022 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 9 (JDP) before Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson. By no later than 8/25/2022, plaintiff shall file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff shall show cause, by no later than 8/25/2022, why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant's motion. Defendant may file a reply to plaintiff's opposition, if any, no later than 9/1/2022.(Perdue, C.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 2:20-cv-02268-KJM-JDP (PS)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED
FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL
AMERICAN RIVER COLLEGE,
ECF No. 19
On July 6, 2022, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 19. To date,
plaintiff has not filed a response to the motion.
Under the court’s local rules, a responding party is required to file an opposition or
statement of non-opposition to a motion no later than fourteen days after the date it was filed.
E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet
certain deadlines. The court may impose sanctions, including dismissing a case, for failure to
comply with its orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Hells Canyon
Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d
1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court has a
duty to administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See
Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.
The court will give plaintiff the opportunity to explain why sanctions should not be
imposed for failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion.
Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure to comply with a court order and
will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The August 11, 2022 hearing on defendant’s motion for summary judgment is
continued to September 8, 2022, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 9.
2. By no later than August 25, 2022, plaintiff shall file an opposition or statement of nonopposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment. See ECF No. 19.
3. Plaintiff shall show cause, by no later than August 25, 2022, why sanctions should not
be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant’s
4. Defendant may file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition, if any, no later than September 1,
5. Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be
dismissed for lack of prosecution, failure to comply with court orders, and failure to comply with
IT IS SO ORDERED.
August 1, 2022
JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?