Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02271/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02271-0/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 

DAVID P. DEMAREST, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

THE CITY OF VALLEJO CALIFORNIA, 

et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-2271-GEB-KJN (PS) 

ORDER 

 On November 28, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint.1

 (ECF 

No. 6.) Defendants noticed this motion for a hearing to take place before the undersigned on 

January 5, 2017. (Id.) Pursuant to this court’s Local Rules, plaintiff was obligated to file and 

serve a written opposition or statement of non-opposition to the pending motion at least fourteen 

(14) days prior to the hearing date, or December 22, 2016. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c).2 The 

 

1

 This action proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21) and 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

 

2

 More specifically, Eastern District Local Rule 230(c) provides: 

(c) Opposition and Non-Opposition. Opposition, if any, to the 

granting of the motion shall be in writing and shall be filed and 

served not less than fourteen (14) days preceding the noticed (or 

continued) hearing date. A responding party who has no opposition 

to the granting of the motion shall serve and file a statement to that 

Case 2:16-cv-02271-MCE-KJN Document 7 Filed 12/27/16 Page 1 of 4
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

court’s docket reveals that plaintiff, who is proceeding without counsel, failed to file a written 

opposition or statement of non-opposition with respect to defendants’ motion. 

 Eastern District Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply 

with these Rules or with any order of the Court 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.” 

Moreover, Eastern District Local Rule 183(a) provides, in part: 

Any individual representing himself or herself without an attorney 

is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, these 

Rules, and all other applicable law. All obligations placed on 

“counsel” by these Rules apply to individuals appearing in propria 

persona. Failure to comply therewith may be ground for dismissal, 

judgment by default, or any other sanction appropriate under these 

Rules. 

See also King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the 

same rules of procedure that govern other litigants”) (overruled on other grounds). Case law is in 

accord that a district court may impose sanctions, including involuntary dismissal of a plaintiff’s 

case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), where that plaintiff fails to prosecute his 

or her case or fails to comply with the court’s orders, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the 

court’s local rules.3 See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991) (recognizing that a 

court “may act sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute”); Hells Canyon Preservation 

Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating that courts may dismiss 

an action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) sua sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to 

prosecute or comply with the rules of civil procedure or the court’s orders); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 

F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a 

proper ground for dismissal”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) 

 

effect, specifically designating the motion in question. No 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. . . . 

3

 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had held that under certain circumstances a district court 

does not abuse its discretion by dismissing a plaintiff’s case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(b) for failing to file an opposition to a motion to dismiss. See, e.g., Trice v. Clark 

County Sch. Dist., 376 Fed. App’x. 789, 790 (9th Cir. 2010) (unpublished). 

Case 2:16-cv-02271-MCE-KJN Document 7 Filed 12/27/16 Page 2 of 4
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 

3

(“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss an action for 

failure to comply with any order of the court”); Thompson v. Housing Auth. of City of L.A., 782 

F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (stating that district courts have inherent power to 

control their dockets and may impose sanctions including dismissal or default). 

 Nevertheless, in light of plaintiff’s pro se status and the court’s desire to resolve 

defendants’ motion on the merits, the court finds it appropriate to continue the hearing on the 

motion and provide plaintiff with one final opportunity to file either an opposition or statement of 

non-opposition to the motion. Plaintiff is cautioned that a further failure to meet the extended 

deadline to file an opposition to defendants’ motion will be considered as plaintiff’s nonopposition to and grounds for granting defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiff is further 

cautioned that a failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition of appropriate 

sanctions, including, but not limited to, monetary sanctions and/or the possible recommendation 

that plaintiff’s entire case be involuntarily dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 41(b). 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 6), which is presently set 

for January 5, 2017, is CONTINUED until February 16, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 

25 before the undersigned. 

 2. Plaintiff shall file a written opposition to defendants’ motion, or statement of nonopposition thereto, on or before February 2, 2017. Plaintiff’s failure to file a written opposition 

will be deemed a statement of non-opposition to the pending motion and consent to the granting 

of the motion, and shall constitute an additional ground for the imposition of appropriate 

sanctions, including monetary sanctions and/or a possible recommendation that plaintiff’s entire 

case be involuntarily dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

 3. Defendants may file a written reply to plaintiff’s opposition, if any, on or before 

February 9, 2017. 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:16-cv-02271-MCE-KJN Document 7 Filed 12/27/16 Page 3 of 4
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 

4

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 27, 2016 

 KJN/amd 

Case 2:16-cv-02271-MCE-KJN Document 7 Filed 12/27/16 Page 4 of 4