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.

Kent v. City of Sacramento

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


July 7, 2009

JOHN KENT, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CITY OF SACRAMENTO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, which was referred to the undersigned pursuant to E. D. Cal. L. R. ("Local Rule") 72-302(c)(21). Presently pending for hearing before this court on July 15, 2009, is a motion to stay these proceedings, on abstention grounds, filed by defendant City of Sacramento and other City defendants. See Dckt. Nos. 18-20, 26.

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,*fn1 or, in this case, by July 1, 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." Court records reflect that, to date, plaintiff has filed neither an opposition nor statement of non-opposition to the pending 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 of July 15, 2009, is vacated, and continued to August 5, 2009, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 25.

2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than July 22, 2009, why sanctions should not be imposed for failure timely to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the pending motion.

3. Plaintiff is directed to file an opposition, if any, to the motions, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, no later than July 22, 2009. Failure to file an opposition will be deemed a statement of non-opposition, and shall result in a recommendation that this action be stayed pending final resolution of plaintiff's state court proceedings or, good cause appearing, 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.