Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01807/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01807-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331va Fed. Question: Violation 5th &amp; 14th Amendment

---

1

3:17-CV-01807-CAB-(KSC)

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

ROBERT FREDEKING and CRYSTAL 

ARANDA,

Plaintiffs,

v.

AURORA BEHAVIORAL HEALTH 

CENTER, INC,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:17-CV-01807-CAB-(KSC)

ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

[Doc. No. 4]

On September 20, 2017, Defendant Aurora Behavioral Health Center, Inc. filed a 

motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 4]. More than a month has passed, and Plaintiffs have not 

filed an opposition.

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

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

7.1.e.2. Failure to comply with the local rules setting a deadline to oppose a motion “may 

constitute a consent to the granting of a motion.” CivLR 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 

Case 3:17-cv-01807-CAB-KSC Document 6 Filed 10/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:17-CV-01807-CAB-(KSC)

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

failure to oppose as consent to granting the motion). That Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se 

in this action does not excuse their failure to follow the rules of procedure that govern other 

litigants. 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.”).

Here, Defendant filed proof of service of the motion, signaling that Plaintiffs were 

served at the address provided on the face of the complaint. [Doc. No. 5.] The motion had

a noticed hearing date of October 25, 2017. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion 

was due on October 11, 2017. As of the date of this order, Plaintiffs have not filed a 

response.

Additionally, the Court has reviewed the complaint and notes that it fails to identify 

any claims asserted against Defendant and does not set forth any factual allegations. [Doc. 

No. 1.] See e.g., Bielma v. Bostic, Case No.: 15cv1606-MMA (BLM), 2016 WL 29624, 

*8 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2016) (quoting McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 1996)) 

(A complaint that lacks “simplicity, conciseness and clarity as to whom plaintiffs are suing 

for what wrongs, fails to perform the essential elements of a complaint.”). Furthermore, 

the complaint purports to be a class action and a plaintiff appearing pro se cannot act as 

counsel for a class. 

In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss 

[Doc. No. 4] is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the complaint is DISMISSED 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 27, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-01807-CAB-KSC Document 6 Filed 10/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2