Hart v. PAE Government Services Incorporated
Filing
63
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 11/29/11; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: The hearing on defendants motion for summary judgment, Dckt. No. 62, is continued to January 25, 2012. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than J anuary 4, 2012, why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the pending motion. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motion, or a statement of non- opposition thereto, no late r than January 4, 2012. 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). Defendant may file a reply to plaintiff's opposition, if any, on or before January 18, 2012.(Matson, R)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
JOHN HENRY HART,
11
Plaintiff,
12
13
No. CIV S-10-1672 KJM EFB PS
vs.
PAE GOVERNMENT SERVICES
INCORPORATED,
14
Defendant.
16
ORDER
/
15
This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned pursuant to
17
Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On November
18
4, 2011, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment and noticed the motion for hearing on
19
December 7, 2011. Dckt. No. 62.
20
Court records reflect that plaintiff has filed neither an opposition nor a statement of
21
non-opposition to defendant’s motion. Local Rule 230(c) provides that opposition to the
22
granting of a motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, must be served upon the moving
23
party, and filed with this court, no later than fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date or,
24
in this instance, by November 23, 2011. Local Rule 230(c) further provides that “[n]o party will
25
be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments if opposition to the motion has
26
not been timely filed by that party.”
1
1
Local Rule 183, governing persons appearing in pro se, provides that failure to comply
2
with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules may be ground for dismissal,
3
judgment by default, or other appropriate sanction. Local Rule 110 provides that failure to
4
comply with the Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all
5
sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” See also
6
Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules
7
is a proper ground for dismissal.”). Pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure, even
8
though pleadings are liberally construed in their favor. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th
9
Cir. 1987).
10
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
11
1. The hearing on defendant’s motion for summary judgment, Dckt. No. 62, is continued
12
to January 25, 2012.
2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than January 4, 2012, why sanctions
13
14
should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to
15
the pending motion.
3. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition
16
17
thereto, no later than January 4, 2012.
18
4. Failure of plaintiff to file an opposition will be deemed a statement of non-opposition
19
to the pending motion, and may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack
20
of prosecution and/or for failure to comply with court orders and this court’s Local Rules. See
21
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
22
////
23
////
24
////
25
////
26
////
2
1
2
3
4
5. Defendant may file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition, if any, on or before January 18,
2012.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 29, 2011.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
