(PC) Valdez v. City of Hanford, CA et al, No. 1:2008cv01572 - Document 18 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: **VACATED Pursuant to 23 Order** FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 10/08/2009 recommending that 14 MOTION to DISMISS be GRANTED and action be DISMISSED. Objections to F&R due by 11/12/2009. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
(PC) Valdez v. City of Hanford, CA et al Doc. 18 1 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 6 7 MICHAEL VALDEZ, Plaintiff, 8 9 vs. 1: 08 CV 01572 LJO YNP SMS (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RE MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC 14) 10 11 12 13 DEAN HOOVER, et al., Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights action 16 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 17 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss 18 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff has failed to oppose the motion. 19 Failure to follow a district court's local rules is a proper grounds for dismissal. U.S. v. 20 Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979). Thus, a court may dismiss an action for plaintiff's 21 failure to oppose a motion to dismiss, where the applicable local rule determines that failure to 22 oppose a motion will be deemed a waiver of opposition. See Ghazali v.Moran, 46 F.3d 52 (9th 23 Cir. 1995), cert. denied 116 S.Ct. 119 (1995) (dismissal upheld even where plaintiff contends he 24 did not receive motion to dismiss, where plaintiff had adequate notice, pursuant to F.R.C.P. 5(b), 25 and time to file opposition); cf. Marshall v. Gates, No. 93-5022, slip op. 99, 105-06 (9th Cir. Jan. 26 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 4, 1995); Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 949-50 (9th Cir. 1993) (motion for 2 summary judgment cannot be granted simply as a sanction for a local rules violation, without an 3 appropriate exercise of discretion). Local Rule 78-230(m) provides that the failure to oppose a motion "may be deemed a 4 5 waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion..." The court will deem plaintiff's failure 6 to oppose defendant's motion to dismiss a waiver, and recommend that the motion be granted on 7 that basis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss be 8 9 granted, and this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 10 11 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty days 12 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 13 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 14 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 15 shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised 16 that failure to file objections within the specified time waives all objections to the judge’s 17 findings of fact. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). Failure to file 18 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 19 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: icido3 October 8, 2009 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.