Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02251/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02251-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JOYCE WILLIAMS, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

STOCKTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, et 

al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-02251-TLN-AC 

ORDER 

 This action was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). On 

December 3, 2014, defendants the Stockton Police Department, Bruce Morris, J. Hughes, and 

Thomas Heslin (“City Defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6). ECF No. 30. No opposition to the motion to dismiss has been filed. On 

December 31, 2014, the City Defendants filed a notice requesting that their motion to dismiss be 

granted based on plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition in violation of Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 78 and Local Rule 230(c). Id. 

 Local Rule 230(c) provides that opposition to the granting of a motion must be filed 

fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date. The Rule further provides that “[n]o party will 

be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments if written opposition to the 

motion has not been timely filed by that party.” In addition, Local Rule 230(j) provides that 

Case 2:13-cv-02251-TLN-AC Document 33 Filed 01/05/15 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

failure to appear may be deemed withdrawal of opposition to the motion or may result in 

sanctions. Finally, Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply 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.” 

 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The hearing date of January 7, 2015, is vacated. Hearing on the City Defendants’ 

motion to dismiss is continued to February 11, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 26. 

 2. Plaintiff shall file opposition, if any, to the motion to dismiss, no later than January 28, 

2015. Failure to file opposition and appear at the hearing will be deemed as a statement of nonopposition and shall result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

DATED: January 5, 2015 

/will2251.13.nonopp.mab 

Case 2:13-cv-02251-TLN-AC Document 33 Filed 01/05/15 Page 2 of 2