IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 15, 2010
LUCRETIA GALLOW, PLAINTIFF,
T. SMITH, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) for Plaintiff's failure to exhaust her administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Plaintiff has failed to oppose the motion.
Local Rule 230(m) provides that the failure to oppose a motion "may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion..." The court will deem plaintiff's failure to oppose defendant's motion to dismiss a waiver, and recommend that the motion be granted on that basis.
Failure to follow a district court's local rules is a proper grounds for dismissal. U.S. v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979). Thus, a court may dismiss an action for plaintiff's failure to oppose a motion to dismiss, where the applicable local rule determines that failure to oppose a motion will be deemed a waiver of opposition. See Ghazali v.Moran, 46 F.3d 52 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 116 S.Ct. 119 (1995) (dismissal upheld even where plaintiff contends he did not receive motion to dismiss, where plaintiff had adequate notice, pursuant to F.R.C.P. 5(b), and time to file opposition); cf. Marshall v. Gates, No. 93-5022, slip op. 99, 105-06 (9th Cir. Jan. 4, 1995); Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 949-50 (9th Cir. 1993) (motion for summary judgment cannot be granted simply as a sanction for a local rules violation, without an appropriate exercise of discretion).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall, within thirty days of the date of service of this order, show cause why this action should not be dismissed for her failure to oppose the motion to dismiss. Plaintiff's failure to do so will result in a recommendation of dismissal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.