Foster v. State of California et al

Filing 33

Order Dismissing the Case Without Prejudice by Judge Charles R. Breyer. (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/9/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Alexander Kendal Foster-Dawson,
No. C 15-3154 CRB
Plaintiff,

12
13

ORDER DISMISSING THE
COMPLAINT WITHOUT
PREJUDICE

v.

14

State of California, County of Alameda,

15

Defendants.

/

16
17

Plaintiff Alexander Foster-Dawson, a pro se litigant, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action

18

against the County of Alameda and the State of California. See Complaint (dkt. 1). Both

19

Defendants moved to dismiss, see County Motion to Dismiss (dkt. 10); State Motion to

20

Dismiss (dkt. 27), and Foster-Dawson was properly served, see County Certificate of Service

21

(dkt. 15); State Certificate of Service (dkt. 27-1). This Court ordered Foster-Dawson to

22

respond to the County’s motion by August 12, 2015, and the State’s motion by September

23

22, 2015. See Memo Entry (dkt. 10); Memo Entry (dkt. 27). Foster-Dawson has failed to

24

respond. Defendants filed and properly served Foster-Dawson with a case management

25

statement notifying him of his failure to follow the Court’s prior orders. See Case

26

Management Statement (dkt. 32); Certificate of Service (dkt. 32-1). Foster-Dawson again

27

failed to take any action to prosecute the case.

28

Although "pro se litigants . . . are held to a lesser pleading standard than other parties,
they are still bound by the federal and local rules and cannot simply ignore a motion filed by

1

the opposing party." See Dr. JKL Ltd. v. HPC IT Educ. Ctr., 749 F. Supp. 2d 1038, 1048

2

(N.D. Cal. 2010) (citing Civil L.R. 3–9(a)); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995)

3

("Failure to follow a district court's local rules is a proper ground for dismissal."). Under this

4

Court’s Local Rules, a "person representing him or herself without an attorney is bound by

5

the Federal Rules, as well as by all applicable local rules. Sanctions (including default or

6

dismissal) may be imposed for failure to comply with local rules." See Civil L.R. 3–9(a).

7

Here, despite receiving multiple notices of his need to file an opposition to Defendants’

8

motions, Foster-Dawson has failed to comply with both this Court’s deadlines and the

9

deadlines outlined in the Local Rules. See Civil L.R. 7–3(a). The Court thus DISMISSES

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Foster-Dawson’s complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE and VACATES the hearing set for

11

November 13, 2015.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: November 9, 2015
CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2