Filed: May 13, 2016
Latest Update: May 13, 2016
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , District Judge . On October 16, 2015, this matter came before the previously assigned Magistrate Judge for a Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference. 1 There was no appearance by or on behalf of plaintiff Dantrell Stevens. (Dkt. No. 36.) On April 12, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff Dantrell Stevens from this action for a lack of prosecution. (Dkt. No. 38.) That motion is noticed for hearing before the undersigned on May 19, 2016. Plaintiff Dan
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , District Judge . On October 16, 2015, this matter came before the previously assigned Magistrate Judge for a Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference. 1 There was no appearance by or on behalf of plaintiff Dantrell Stevens. (Dkt. No. 36.) On April 12, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff Dantrell Stevens from this action for a lack of prosecution. (Dkt. No. 38.) That motion is noticed for hearing before the undersigned on May 19, 2016. Plaintiff Dant..
More
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, District Judge.
On October 16, 2015, this matter came before the previously assigned Magistrate Judge for a Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference.1 There was no appearance by or on behalf of plaintiff Dantrell Stevens. (Dkt. No. 36.) On April 12, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff Dantrell Stevens from this action for a lack of prosecution. (Dkt. No. 38.) That motion is noticed for hearing before the undersigned on May 19, 2016. Plaintiff Dantrell Stevens, however, has not filed a statement of opposition or non-opposition.
Pursuant to the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, opposition, if any, to the granting of a motion "shall be in writing and shall be filed and served not less than fourteen (14) days preceding the noticed (or continued) hearing date." Local Rule 230(c). "No 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." Id. Failure of a party to comply with the Local Rules or any order of the court "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." Local Rule 110. Any individual representing himself or herself without an attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules, and all applicable law. Local Rule 183(a). Failure to comply with applicable rules and law may be grounds for dismissal or any other sanction appropriate under the Local Rules. Id.
Here, plaintiff Dantrell Stevens has failed to comply with Local Rule 230. In light of plaintiff's pro se status, and in the interests of justice, the court will provide plaintiff with an opportunity to show good cause for his conduct along with a final opportunity to oppose defendants' motion.
Accordingly, the court HEREBY ORDERS that:
1. Within fourteen days of the date of this order, plaintiff Dantrell Stevens shall show cause in writing as to why plaintiff Dantrell Stevens should not be dismissed from this action for a lack of prosecution.2 Failure to timely file the required writing will result in a recommendation that plaintiff Dantrell Stevens be dismissed from this action.
2. The May 19, 2016 hearing of defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 38) is vacated.
