(PS) Alston v. Tassone, et al, No. 2:2011cv02078 - Document 22 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 3/5/12 ORDERING that the 3/15/12 hearing on defendants' MOTION to Dismiss and MOTION to Strike 21 is VACATED. The Motions are submitted on the record with a written order and/or findings and recommendations to follow.(Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
(PS) Alston v. Tassone, et al Doc. 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 C.D. ALSTON, 11 12 13 Plaintiff, CIV. NO. S-11-2078 JAM GGH PS vs. PAUL TASSONE et al., 14 Defendants. ORDER / 15 16 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action, which was 17 referred to the undersigned by E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 18 Defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion to strike are presently calendared for hearing on 19 March 15, 2012. (Dkt. No. 21.) Pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c), plaintiff was required to file 20 an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motions not less than fourteen (14) days 21 preceding the hearing date, i.e. by March 1, 2012. Plaintiff failed to file an opposition to these 22 motions. 23 Although the court liberally construes the pleadings of pro se litigants, they are 24 required to adhere to the rules of court. Failure to obey local rules may not only result in 25 dismissal of the action, but “no party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral 26 arguments if opposition has not been timely filed by that party.” E. D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). More 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 broadly, failure to comply with the Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition . . . of any and 2 all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” E. D. Cal. 3 L.R. 110; see also E. D. Cal. L.R. 183 (requiring compliance with the Local and Federal Rules by 4 pro se litigants). 5 Having reviewed the record, the court has determined that oral argument would 6 not be of material assistance in determining the pending motions. Therefore, the court will not 7 entertain oral argument, and will determine the motions on the record, including the briefing in 8 support of the pending motions. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). 9 10 11 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The March 15, 2012 hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion to strike (dkt. no. 21) is vacated; and 2. The motions are submitted on the record with a written order and/or findings 13 and recommendations to follow. 14 DATED: March 5, 2012 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 GGH/wvr Alston.2078.mtd.vac.wpd 17 18 19 20 21 22 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.