Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00095/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00095-38/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil 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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KELVIN X. SINGLETON,

Plaintiff,

v.

HEDGEPATH, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

1:08-cv-00095-AWI-GSA-PC

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE

OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF NONOPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT VASQUEZ’S

MOTION TO DISMISS WITHIN THIRTY

DAYS

(Doc. 174.)

On April 26, 2011, defendant Vasquez ("Defendant") filed a motion to dismiss. (Doc. 174.) 

Plaintiff was required to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion within

twenty-one days, but has not done so. Local Rule 230(l).

Local Rule 230(l) 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 any failure to oppose

Defendant's motion to dismiss as 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 516 U.S. 838 (1995) (dismissal upheld even where plaintiff contends he

did not receive motion to dismiss, where plaintiff had adequate notice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

Case 1:08-cv-00095-EPG Document 187 Filed 07/07/11 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

P. 5(b), and time to file opposition); cf. Marshall v. Gates, 44 F.3d 722, 725 (9th Cir. 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, within thirty days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an

opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Vasquez. 

If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the Court will deem the failure to respond as a waiver,

and recommend that the motion be granted on that basis.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 7, 2011 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00095-EPG Document 187 Filed 07/07/11 Page 2 of 2