(PS) Harris v. Homeq Servicing, No. 2:2010cv00483 - Document 16 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 7/15/2010 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Zignago, K.)

Download PDF

(PS) Harris v. Homeq Servicing Doc. 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RANDY K. HARRIS, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 15 16 No. CIV 2:10cv0483-JAM-JFM (PS) vs. HOMEQ SERVICING, Defendant. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS / On March 16, 2010, defendant filed a motion to dismiss. On May 25, 2010, the 17 undersigned recommended that this matter be dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to file an 18 opposition. On May 26, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to respond to the 19 motion to dismiss. By order dated June 4, 2010, the undersigned vacated its recommendation 20 that this matter be dismissed and granted plaintiff an extension up to and including June 24, 2010 21 to file an opposition. Plaintiff has been cautioned that failure to file an opposition would be 22 deemed as a statement of non-opposition to the granting of the motion. Plaintiff has filed no 23 opposition, although court records reflect plaintiff was properly served with notice of the motion 24 and the order granting an extension of time to file opposition at plaintiff’s address of record. 25 26 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 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 the granting of the motion . . . .” Further, Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with 2 the Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or 3 Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” 4 By order filed April 27, 2010, plaintiff was advised of the above requirements for 5 filing opposition under the Local Rules and cautioned that failure to comply with the Local 6 Rules might result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, by orders filed May 25, 2010 and 7 June 4, 2010, plaintiff was again advised of the requirements under the Local Rules, afforded 8 additional time to file opposition, cautioned that failure to file opposition would be deemed a 9 statement of nonopposition and would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 10 Plaintiff has again failed to file an opposition. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), therefore, the court 11 deems the failure to file written opposition as a waiver of any opposition to the granting of 12 defendant’s motion. 13 “Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.” 14 Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Pro se litigants are bound by the rules of 15 procedure, even though pleadings are liberally construed in their favor. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 16 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987); Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364-65 (9th Cir.1986) . 17 In determining to recommend that this action be dismissed, the court has 18 considered the five factors set forth in Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with 19 the Local Rules has impeded the expeditious resolution of the instant litigation and has burdened 20 the court’s docket, consuming scarce judicial resources in addressing litigation which plaintiff 21 demonstrates no intention to pursue. Although public policy favors disposition of cases on their 22 merits, plaintiff’s failure to oppose the pending motion has precluded the court from doing so. In 23 addition, defendants are prejudiced by the inability to reply to opposition. Finally, the court has 24 repeatedly advised plaintiff of the requirements under the Local Rules and granted ample 25 additional time to oppose the pending motion, all to no avail. The court finds no suitable 26 alternative to dismissal of this action. 2 1 2 3 Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 4 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 5 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 6 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 7 “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 8 shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are 9 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 10 District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 11 DATED: July 15, 2010. 12 13 14 15 /014;harr0483.fsc.noop 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3

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.