Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01709/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01709-8/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

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

LEONARD RANSOM, JR., 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

DANNY HERRERA, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:11-cv-01709-LJO-EPG-PC

 

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO 

FILE OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF 

NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT

BRANNUM’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

On July 7, 2016, defendant Ricky Brannum (“Defendant”) filed a motion to dismiss. 

(ECF No. 38.) 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

Case 1:11-cv-01709-LJO-EPG Document 47 Filed 09/01/16 Page 1 of 2
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

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

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, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. 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 Ricky Brannum; and

2. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the Court will deem the failure to 

respond as a waiver and may recommend that the motion to dismiss be granted 

on that basis.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 31, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01709-LJO-EPG Document 47 Filed 09/01/16 Page 2 of 2