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.

Abeytia v. City of Fresno

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


December 10, 2008

ERNEST HECTOR ABEYTIA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CITY OF FRESNO, FRESNO POLICE DEPARTMENT AND FRESNO POLICE OFFICER GENE JOHNSON, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE WRITTEN OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND CONTINUING HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS IN BOTH PERSONAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, FROM DECEMBER 15, 2008 TO MARCH 9, 2009

Plaintiff Ernest Hector Abeytia, proceeding in pro per, has filed a complaint against the City of Fresno, the Fresno Police Department, Officer Gene Johnson, and Does 1-100, asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, in addition to various state law claims. Defendants City of Fresno, Fresno Police Department, and Officer Gene Johnson filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, or in the alternative, a motion for a more definite statement on October 17, 2008. Defendants' motions are set for hearing on December 15, 2008.

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss or a statement of non-opposition within the time required by Rule 78-230(c), Local Rules of Practice. Plaintiff is advised that Rule 83-183(a), Local Rules of Practice, provides:

Any individual representing himself or Federal Rules of Civil ... Procedure and by herself without an attorney is bound by the these Local Rules. All obligations placed on individuals appearing in propria persona. 'counsel' by these Local Rules apply to appropriate under these Rules. dismissal ... or any other sanction Failure to comply therewith may be ground for Plaintiff is ordered to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss or a statement of non-opposition in accordance with this Order on or before January 12, 2009. Under Rule 78-230(c), a party who fails to file an opposition has no right to be heard at oral argument. Failure to timely comply will result in the motions being heard on the merits and/or dismissal of this action. The hearing on Defendants' motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, motion for a more definite statement is continued from December 15, 2008 to Monday, March 9, 2009.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20081210

© 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.