Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00735/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00735-5/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROBERT BENYAMINI, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

M. SWETT, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-735-KJM-EFB P 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

 On February 13, 2015 defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that 

plaintiff failed to properly exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. ECF No. 37. 

Defendants noticed the hearing on their motion for March 18, 2015. Id. 

 Court records reflect that plaintiff has not filed an opposition or statement of nonopposition to the motion for summary judgment. Local Rule 230(c) provides that opposition to 

the granting of a motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, must be served upon the 

moving party, and filed with this court, no later than fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing 

date or, in this instance, by March 4, 2015. Local Rule 230(c) further provides that “[n]o 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.” 

 Local Rule 183, governing persons appearing in pro se, provides that failure to comply 

with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules may be grounds for dismissal, 

Case 2:13-cv-00735-KJM-EFB Document 38 Filed 03/11/15 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

judgment by default, or other appropriate sanctions. Local Rule 110 provides that failure to 

comply with the Local Rules “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.” See also 

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules 

is a proper ground for dismissal.”). Pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure, even 

though pleadings are liberally construed in their favor. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th 

Cir. 1987). 

 Accordingly, good cause appearing, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

 1. The hearing on defendants’ motion for summary judgment is continued to April 8, 

2015 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 8. 

 2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than March 25, 2015, why sanctions 

should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to 

the pending motion. 

 3. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, 

no later than March 25, 2015. 

 4. Failure of plaintiff to file an opposition to the motion will be deemed a statement of 

non-opposition thereto, and may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack 

of prosecution and/or for failure to comply with court orders and this court’s Local Rules. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

 5. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition, if any, on or before April 1, 2015. 

DATED: March 11, 2015. 

Case 2:13-cv-00735-KJM-EFB Document 38 Filed 03/11/15 Page 2 of 2