Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00531/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00531-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 

MARY J. CRAGO, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

LEONARD, K #0877, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:13-cv-531-TLN-EFB PS 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

 On December 26, 2013, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment.1 ECF No. 35. 

Defendant noticed the hearing on that motion for January 29, 2014. 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 January 15, 2014. 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.” 

///// 

 1

 This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). 

Case 2:13-cv-00531-EFB Document 38 Filed 01/22/14 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

 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, 

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 defendant’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 35, is continued 

to April 9, 2014. 

 2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than February 5, 2014, 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 26, 2014. 

 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. Defendant may file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition, if any, on or before April 2, 2014. 

DATED: January 22, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-00531-EFB Document 38 Filed 01/22/14 Page 2 of 2