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.

Hamer v. El Dorado County

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 17, 2009

PATRICK MICHAEL HAMER, DONNA LEE HAMER, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
EL DORADO COUNTY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER

Presently pending on this court's law and motion calendar for Wednesday, February 25, 2009, are defendants' motions to dismiss, Dckt. Nos. 6, 8, and 12.*fn1 Although defendants' reply filed February 11, 2009, Dckt. No. 14, references plaintiffs' opposition and request for extension of time within which to oppose the motions, this court has not received these documents or any filing by plaintiffs in opposition to the pending motions.

Local Rule 78-230(c) provides that opposition to the granting of a motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, must be personally served upon the moving party, and filed with this court, no later than fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date,*fn2 or, in this case, by February 11, 2009. Local Rule 78-230(c) further provides that "[n]o party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments if opposition to the motion has not been timely filed by that party." To date, plaintiffs have filed neither an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion.

Local Rule 83-183, governing persons appearing in propria persona, provides that failure to comply with the Federal Rules and Local Rules may be ground for dismissal, judgment by default, or other appropriate sanction. "Failure to follow a district court's local rules is a proper ground for dismissal." Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure, even though pleadings are liberally construed in their favor. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Finally, Local Rule 11-110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules "may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court."

Accordingly, good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The hearing date ofFebruary 25, 2009, is continued to March 18, 2009, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 25.

2. Plaintiffs shall show cause, in writing, no later than March 4, 2009, why sanctions should not be imposed for failure timely to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the pending motions.

3. Plaintiffs are directed to file opposition, if any, to the motions, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, no later than March 4, 2009. Failure to file an opposition will be deemed a statement of non-opposition, and shall result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

SO ORDERED.


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.