Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Neumann v. Veal

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


November 12, 2008

CHARLES NEUMANN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MARTIN VEAL, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel seeking relief for alleged civil rights violations. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 4, 2008, defendants Veal, Cry, Silbaugh and Smith moved to dismiss for failure to exhaust and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) & 12(b)(6). On August 5, 2008, the court deemed defendants' motion to dismiss timely and directed plaintiff to file an opposition within thirty days. On August 27, 2008 and October 8, 2008, the court granted plaintiff further extensions of time within which to file his opposition. The October 8, 2008, order warned plaintiff that the court did not intend to grant additional requests for extensions of time. The 20-day period in the October 8, 2008, order has expired and plaintiff has not filed an opposition or a statement of no opposition.

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." Ibid. Furthermore, a party's 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." Local Rule 11-110. The court may recommend that an action be dismissed with or without prejudice, as appropriate, if a party 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 April 9, 2008, the court advised plaintiff of the requirements for filing an opposition to the motion, that failure to oppose such a motion may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion and that failure to comply with the Local Rules may result in a recommendation of dismissal.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, within 15 days of the date this order is signed, plaintiff shall file either an opposition to the motion to dismiss or a statement of no opposition. No further extensions of time will be granted. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

20081112

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.