Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01209/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01209-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID WISE, an individual;

CHRISTINA WISE, an individual,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cv1209-GPC(BGS)

NOTICE RE: PLAINTIFFS’

FAILURE TO FILE AN

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS

vs.

DANIEL NORDELL, in his individual

and official capacity; JIM KOERBER,

in his official capacity; BONNIE

DUMANIS, in her official capacity;

THE SAN DIEGO DISTRICT

ATTORNEY'S OFFICE; ANGELA

CHANG, in her individual and official

capacity; THE COUNTY OF SAN

DIEGO; THE CALIFORNIA BOARD

OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS; DOES

1-50,

Defendants.

On July 27, 2017, the Court lifted the stay in this matter and set a briefing

schedule on Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 86.) Pursuant to the scheduling

order, on August 9, 2017, Defendants County of San Diego, District Attorney Bonnie 1

Dumanis, Deputy District Attorney Jim Koerber and District Attorney Investigator

Daniel Nordell filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 88.) 

Defendant Angela Chang did not file a motion to dismiss. 1

- 1 - [12cv1209-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:12-cv-01209-GPC-BGS Document 92 Filed 09/19/17 PageID.<pageID> 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

To date, Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition.

2

Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2. requires a party opposing a motion to file an opposition

or statement of non-opposition within fourteen calendar days of the noticed hearing.

Failure to comply with these rules “may constitute a consent to the granting of a

motion.” Civ. Local R. 7.1.f.3.c. District courts have broad discretion to enact and

apply local rules, including dismissal of a case for failure to comply with the local

rules. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming grant of an

unopposed motion to dismiss under local rule by deeming a pro se litigant’s failure to

oppose as consent to granting the motion); see United States v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471,

474 (9th Cir. 1979). Even though the court has an obligation to liberally construe their

pleadings, “pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure.” Ghazali, 46 F.3d at

54. 

Here, Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition and failure to file an opposition

may constitute a consent to the granting of the motion. See Civ. Local R. 7.1.f.3.c. 

Therefore, because the first amended complaint may be subject to dismissal and

Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se, the Court grants Plaintiffs another opportunity to file

an opposition or statement of non-opposition. Plaintiffs shall file an opposition or

statement of non-opposition on or before October 6, 2017. In the event Plaintiffs file

an opposition, Defendants shall file a reply on or before October 13, 2017. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 19, 2017

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

cc:

Christina Wise

3525 Del Mar Heights Road, Suite 31

San Diego, CA 92130-2227

The deadline to file an opposition passed on September 1, 2017. (See Dkt. No. 2

86.) 

- 2 - [12cv1209-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:12-cv-01209-GPC-BGS Document 92 Filed 09/19/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2