Salado v. Sisto

Full title: MARTIN SALADO, Plaintiff, v. D.K. SISTO, et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Aug 24, 2011

No. 2:11-cv-0611 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2011)

Opinion

No. 2:11-cv-0611 KJN P.

August 24, 2011

ORDER

KENDALL NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge

On July 19, 2011, defendant Rice¹ filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff has not opposed the motion.

1 Defendant Sisto was dismissed on May 23, 2011. Defendant Conrad signed a waiver of service of process on June 10, 2011.

Local Rule 230(l) provides in part: "Failure of the responding party to file written opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion. . . ." On May 20, 2011, plaintiff was advised of the requirements for filing an opposition to a motion and that failure to oppose such a motion may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion.

Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules "may be grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court." In the order filed May 20, 2011, plaintiff was also advised that failure to comply with the Local Rules may result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed.

Finally, Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

Involuntary Dismissal; Effect. If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it. Unless the dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision (b) and any dismissal not under this rule — except one for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join a party under Rule 19 — operates as an adjudication on the merits.

Id.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within thirty days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition, if any, to the motion to dismiss. Failure to file an opposition will be deemed as consent to have the: (a) pending motion granted; and (b) plaintiff's claims against defendant Rice dismissed for lack of prosecution. Such a failure shall result in a recommendation that defendant Rice's motion to dismiss be granted.

DATED: August 23, 2011