Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00776/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00776-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 865
Nature of Suit: Social Security - RSI (405(g))
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Notice of Removal - Suit against Federal Officer

---

1

17cv776-CAB-RBB

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

ROWENA HUI,

Plaintiff,

v.

SOCIAL SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17cv776-CAB-RBB

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS [Doc. No. 2]

On April 25, 2017, defendant Social Security Administration/United States of 

America filed a motion to dismiss. [Doc. No. 2.] More than six weeks have passed, and 

plaintiff has not filed an opposition. 

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

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

to comply with these rules “may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion.” Civ. 

Local R. 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 failure to oppose as consent to granting the 

motion). Before dismissing an action for failure to comply with local rules, the district 

Case 3:17-cv-00776-CAB-RBB Document 3 Filed 06/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

17cv776-CAB-RBB

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

court “weigh[s] several factors: ‘(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 

litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the 

defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases of their merits; and (5) the 

availability of less drastic sanctions.’” Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53 (quoting Henderson v. 

Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.1986)). That plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this 

action does not excuse her 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 attached a proof of service to its motion, signaling that plaintiff 

was served at the address provided on the face of her complaint. [Doc. No. 2-2.] 

Moreover, plaintiff was provided adequate time to prepare a response. The notice of 

motion set a hearing for May 30, 2017, resulting in a response deadline for plaintiff of 

May 16, 2017, approximately three weeks after defendant’s motion was filed on April 25, 

2107. Almost one month has passed since then and still plaintiff has not filed an 

opposition. Thus, the Court finds that “the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 

litigation,” “the court’s need to manage its docket,” and “the risk of prejudice to the 

defendant” all weigh in favor of granting the motion to dismiss. See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 

53. Accordingly, the majority of the Ghazali factors weigh in favor of dismissal.

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

dismiss [Doc. No. 2] is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the case is 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 12, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00776-CAB-RBB Document 3 Filed 06/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2