Filed: Feb. 03, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 03, 2016
Summary: ORDER EDMUND F. BRENNAN , Magistrate Judge . Defendants moved to dismiss this action and noticed their motion for hearing on February 10, 2016. ECF No. 11. Court records reflect that plaintiff has not filed a timely opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion. Local Rule 230(c) provides that opposition to the granting of a motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, must be served upon the moving party, and filed with this court, no later than fourteen days preceding the
Summary: ORDER EDMUND F. BRENNAN , Magistrate Judge . Defendants moved to dismiss this action and noticed their motion for hearing on February 10, 2016. ECF No. 11. Court records reflect that plaintiff has not filed a timely opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion. Local Rule 230(c) provides that opposition to the granting of a motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, must be served upon the moving party, and filed with this court, no later than fourteen days preceding the n..
More
ORDER
EDMUND F. BRENNAN, Magistrate Judge.
Defendants moved to dismiss this action and noticed their motion for hearing on February 10, 2016. ECF No. 11. Court records reflect that plaintiff has not filed a timely opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion.
Local Rule 230(c) provides that opposition to the granting of a motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, must be served upon the moving party, and filed with this court, no later than fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date. Local Rule 230(c) further provides that "[n]o party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments if opposition to the motion has not been timely filed by that party." Local Rule 183, governing persons appearing in pro se, provides that failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules may be grounds for dismissal, judgment by default, or other appropriate sanctions. Local Rule 110 provides that 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." See also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) ("Failure to follow a district court's local rules is a proper ground for dismissal."). 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).
Accordingly, good cause appearing, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 11) is continued to March 2, 2016.
2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than February 17, 2016, why sanctions should not be imposed for the failure to timely file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the pending motion.1
3. Plaintiffs shall file an opposition to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, no later than February 17, 2016.
4. Failure of to file an opposition to the motion will be deemed a statement of non-opposition thereto, and may result in a recommendation that this this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution and/or for failure to comply with court orders and this court's Local Rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
5. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiff's opposition, if any, on or before February 24, 2016.
