Opinion
No. 2:13-cv-1748-KJM-EFB PS
10-23-2013
NIRUP DAVE, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SACRAMENTO, Defendant.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
On September 3, 2013, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. ECF No. 5. Defendant noticed the hearing on that motion for October 9, 2013. Id. Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to continue the hearing date, ECF No. 7, which was granted and the hearing was continued to October 30, 2013, ECF No. 8.
This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21).
Court records reflect that plaintiff has not filed an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion to dismiss. 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 or, in this instance, by October 16, 2013. 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 defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5) is continued to November 20, 2013.
2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than November 6, 2013, why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the pending motion.
3. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, no later than November 6, 2013.
4. Failure of plaintiff to file an opposition to the motion will be deemed a statement of non-opposition thereto, and may result in a recommendation that 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. Defendant may file a reply to plaintiff's opposition, if any, on or before November 13, 2013.
__________________
EDMUND F. BRENNAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE