Opinion
No. CIV S 05-1844 MCE EFB P.
April 27, 2007
ORDER
On December 1, 2006, defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b). Although granted an extension of time to do so, plaintiff has not opposed the motion.
A responding party's failure "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 and may result in the imposition of sanctions." L. R. 78-230(m). Failure to comply with any order or 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." L. R. 11-110. The court may recommend this action be dismissed with or without prejudice, as appropriate, if plaintiff disobeys an order or the Local Rules. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1252 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court did not abuse discretion in dismissing pro se plaintiff's complaint for failing to obey an order to re-file an amended complaint to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for pro se plaintiff's failure to comply with local rule regarding notice of change of address affirmed);
On September 26, 2006, and January 19, 2007, the court advised plaintiff of the requirements for filing an opposition to the motion, that failure to file an opposition or statement of no opposition would be deemed a waiver of opposition thereto, and that failure to comply with the Local Rules might result in a recommendation of dismissal.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, within 20 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file either an opposition to the motion to dismiss or a statement of non-opposition. The court will grant no more extensions of time. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice.