Filed: Feb. 16, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 16, 2012
Summary: ORDER CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se in this action, referred to the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21). Defendants' motion to dismiss is presently noticed for hearing on the February 29, 2012 law and motion calendar of the undersigned. ( See Dkt. No. 7.) Opposition to motions, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, must be filed fourteen days prior to the noticed hearing date. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). Court records reflect that plaintif
Summary: ORDER CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se in this action, referred to the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21). Defendants' motion to dismiss is presently noticed for hearing on the February 29, 2012 law and motion calendar of the undersigned. ( See Dkt. No. 7.) Opposition to motions, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, must be filed fourteen days prior to the noticed hearing date. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). Court records reflect that plaintiff..
More
ORDER
CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se in this action, referred to the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21). Defendants' motion to dismiss is presently noticed for hearing on the February 29, 2012 law and motion calendar of the undersigned. (See Dkt. No. 7.) Opposition to motions, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, must be filed fourteen days prior to the noticed hearing date. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). Court records reflect that plaintiffs failed to timely file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion.
Failure to comply with the Local Rules "may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court." E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; see Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Additionally, "[n]o party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral argument if written opposition to the motion has not been timely filed." E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). Pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure, even though pleadings are liberally construed in their favor. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987); Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364-65 (9th Cir. 1986). The Local Rules specifically provide that cases of persons appearing in propria persona who fail to comply with the Federal and Local Rules are subject to dismissal, judgment by default, and other appropriate sanctions. E.D. Cal. L.R. 183.
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The hearing date of February 29, 2012 is vacated. Hearing on defendants' motion is continued to March 14, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. in courtroom no. 26.
2. Plaintiffs are directed to file an opposition, if any, to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, no later than February 29, 2012. Failure to file an opposition and appear at the hearing, or to file a statement of non-opposition, will be deemed a statement of non-opposition, and shall result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.
3. Reply, if any, shall be filed no later than March 7, 2012.
