Bivolarevic v. U.S. CIA

Filing 32

ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong DENYING 11 Motion to Continue Case Management Conference; DENYING 26 Motion for Extension of Time for the Case Management Conference; DENYING 27 Motion to Continue Case Management Conference. Plaintiff's Opposition due 02/16/10. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2010) Modified on 1/13/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 1/13/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 1/13/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 VESNA BIVOLAREVIC, 11 12 vs. Plaintiff, Case No: C 09-4620 SBA ORDER Docket 11, 20, 26, 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION

13 U.S. CIA, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The parties are advised that the Court may resolve the motion without oral argument in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b).
1

Defendant.

On September 30, 2009, Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint against the CIA (presumably meaning the Central Intelligence Agency) alleging that she has been subjected to "voice to skull technology (in different forms) since . . . January 2005." Compl. at 1, Docket 1. Defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) is scheduled for hearing on March 9, 2010. Under Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiff's opposition to the motion is due by February 16, 2010.1 Defendant has filed an administrative motion to continue the Case Management Conference from January 13, 2010, until after the resolution of the motion to dismiss. (Docket 11.) Plaintiff has filed two motions to continue the Case Management Conference to January 26, 2010. (Docket 20, 26.) However, the Court previously continued the Case Management Conference from January

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

13, 2010 to March 9, 2010, to follow the hearing on the motion to dismiss. Therefore, both motions to continue are denied as moot. Plaintiff also has filed a "Request to Check the Validity of the Defendant's Motion to Dissmis (sic) the Complaint." (Docket 27.) Though not entirely clear, it appears that Plaintiff's request is an attempt to respond to Defendant's motion to dismiss. If so, Plaintiff's submission is insufficient. To the extent Plaintiff intends to oppose the Defendant's motion, she must respond directly to the arguments presented in Defendant's motion, which her submission fails to do. Plaintiff's opposition is due on February 16, 2010. Plaintiff is advised to review Rule 7 of the Civil Local Rules, which governs the filing of motions and oppositions in civil cases pending before the Court. Plaintiff is warned that the failure to file an opposition by February 16, 2010, may be deemed to be a consent to the granting of the motion, meaning that her case will be dismissed with prejudice. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992). Though Plaintiff is representing herself in this matter, she is expected to comply with all applicable procedural rules the same as any represented party. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Finally, Plaintiff has filed a "Notice Regarding the Material/Mail Received by Plaintiff Since January 2010, Its Content, and Case' (sic) Relevant Questions from the Plaintiff." (Docket 30.) In her notice, Plaintiff questions why certain material was sent to her by Defendant's counsel and the Court. Plaintiff's notice, which does not seek any specific relief from the Court, is improper, as it is not in compliance with the Local Rules. Plaintiff is warned that any papers that are not authorized by a statute, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court's Local Rules or are not in response to an order of the Court will not be considered. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiff and Defendant's respective motions to continue the Case Management

Conference (Docket 11, 20, 26) are DENIED as moot. 2. Plaintiff's "Request to Check the Validity of the Defendant's Motion to Dissmis

(sic) the Complaint" (Docket 27) is DENIED.

-2-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

3.

Plaintiff is ordered to file her opposition to Defendant's motion to dismiss by no

later than February 16, 2010. Failure to file an opposition by that date may be deemed to be a consent to the granting of Defendant's motion to dismiss. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2010

____________________________ SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge

-3-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA VESNA BIVOLAREVIC, Plaintiff, v. U.S. CIA et al, Defendant. / Case Number: CV09-04620 SBA CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on January 12, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Vesna Bivolarevic P.O. Box 1056 Redwood City, CA 94064 Dated: January 12, 2010 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

-4-