Opinion
No. CIV S-11-0318 GEB EFB PS
08-01-2011
FERNANDO SHAH, Plaintiff, v. EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, Defendant.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, is before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On June 28, 2011, defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint, and noticed the motion to be heard on August 10, 2011. Dckt. No. 9.
Court records reflect that plaintiff has not filed either an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the 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 July 27, 2011. 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, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The hearing on defendant's motion to dismiss, Dckt. No. 9, is continued to September 7, 2011.
2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than August 24, 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 August 24, 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 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 August 31, 2011.
6. The status conference currently scheduled for September 14, 2011, is continued to December 21, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 24.
7. On or before December 7, 2011, the parties shall file status reports addressing the matters referenced in the court's May 5, 2011 order.
SO ORDERED.
EDMUND F. BRENNAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE