Filed: Aug. 09, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 09, 2018
Summary: ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS FILED BY DEFENDANTS GOMNESS AND PALMER (ECF No. 58.) THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE GARY S. AUSTIN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Matthew V. Salinas ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. This case now proceeds with Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint, filed on January 17, 2018, against defendants K. Gomness and P
Summary: ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS FILED BY DEFENDANTS GOMNESS AND PALMER (ECF No. 58.) THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE GARY S. AUSTIN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Matthew V. Salinas ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. This case now proceeds with Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint, filed on January 17, 2018, against defendants K. Gomness and P...
More
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS FILED BY DEFENDANTS GOMNESS AND PALMER (ECF No. 58.)
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE
GARY S. AUSTIN, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Matthew V. Salinas ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint, filed on January 17, 2018, against defendants K. Gomness and P. Palmer ("Defendants") in their official capacities for intentional discrimination in violation of the ADA.1 (ECF No. 44.)
On July 6, 2018, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 58.) Plaintiff was required to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion within twenty-one days, but has not done so. Local Rule 230(l).
Local Rule 230(l) provides that the failure to oppose a motion "may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion . . ." The court may deem any failure to oppose Defendants' motion to dismiss as a waiver, and recommend that the motion be granted on that basis.
Failure to follow a district court's local rules is a proper grounds for dismissal. U.S. v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979). Thus, a court may dismiss an action for the plaintiff's failure to oppose a motion to dismiss, where the applicable local rule determines that failure to oppose a motion will be deemed a waiver of opposition. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 838 (1995) (dismissal upheld even where plaintiff contends he did not receive motion to dismiss, where plaintiff had adequate notice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b), and time to file opposition); cf. Marshall v. Gates, 44 F.3d 722, 725 (9th Cir. 1995); Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 949-50 (9th Cir. 1993). The court may also dismiss this case for Plaintiff's failure to comply with the court's order. See Local Rule 110; Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002)
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Within thirty days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants on July 6, 2018; and
2. Plaintiff's failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
