Opinion
No. CIV 09-1038 KJM EFB PS
10-05-2011
IRWIN DOUGLAS, Plaintiff, v. SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On September 8, 2011, defendants filed a motion for attorneys' fees and noticed the motion to be heard on October 12, 2011. Dckt. No. 75.
Court records reflect that plaintiff has filed neither an opposition nor a statement of non-opposition to defendants' 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 or, in this instance, by September 28, 2011. See also E.D. Cal. L.R. 293(a). 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 ground for dismissal, judgment by default, or other appropriate sanction. 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 for attorneys' fees, Dckt. No. 75, is continued to November 2, 2011.
2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than October 19, 2011, 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 October 19, 2011.
4. Failure of plaintiff to file an opposition will be deemed a statement of non-opposition to the pending motion, and may result in a recommendation that the motion be granted.
5. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiff's opposition, if any, on or before October 26, 2011.
SO ORDERED.
EDMUND F. BRENNAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE