Filed: Jun. 16, 2016
Latest Update: Jun. 16, 2016
Summary: ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE GREGORY G. HOLLOWS , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). Defendant Garren Bratcher's motion to dismiss is presently noticed for hearing on the June 23, 2016 law and motion calendar of the undersigned. Opposition to motions, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, must be filed fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date. E.D. Cal. L. R. 230(c). Court records refl
Summary: ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE GREGORY G. HOLLOWS , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). Defendant Garren Bratcher's motion to dismiss is presently noticed for hearing on the June 23, 2016 law and motion calendar of the undersigned. Opposition to motions, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, must be filed fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date. E.D. Cal. L. R. 230(c). Court records refle..
More
ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
GREGORY G. HOLLOWS, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). Defendant Garren Bratcher's motion to dismiss is presently noticed for hearing on the June 23, 2016 law and motion calendar of the undersigned. Opposition to motions, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, must be filed fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date. E.D. Cal. L. R. 230(c). Court records reflect that plaintiff failed to file opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion on or before June 9, 2016 when it was due.
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 arguments if written opposition to the motion has not been timely filed." E.D. Cal. L. R. 230(c).1 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), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 925 (9th Cir. 2012); 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 June 23, 2016 is vacated, and may, or may not, be reset after June 30, 2016.
2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than June 30, 2016 why sanctions should not be imposed for failure timely to file opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the pending motion.
3. Plaintiff is directed to file opposition, if any, to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, no later than June 30, 2016. Failure to file opposition and appear at hearing, if reset, or to file a statement of non-opposition, will be deemed a statement of non-opposition, and shall result in a recommendation that certain defendants, or this entire action be dismissed.
