Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00483/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00483-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 23:1441 Contract Real Estate

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RANDY K. HARRIS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV 2:10cv0483-JAM-JFM (PS)

vs.

HOMEQ SERVICING,

Defendant. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

On March 16, 2010, defendant filed a motion to dismiss. On May 25, 2010, the

undersigned recommended that this matter be dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to file an

opposition. On May 26, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to respond to the

motion to dismiss. By order dated June 4, 2010, the undersigned vacated its recommendation

that this matter be dismissed and granted plaintiff an extension up to and including June 24, 2010

to file an opposition. Plaintiff has been cautioned that failure to file an opposition would be

deemed as a statement of non-opposition to the granting of the motion. Plaintiff has filed no

opposition, although court records reflect plaintiff was properly served with notice of the motion

and the order granting an extension of time to file opposition at plaintiff’s address of record. 

Local Rule 230(l) provides in part: “Failure of the responding party to file written

opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to

Case 2:10-cv-00483-JAM -JFM Document 16 Filed 07/15/10 Page 1 of 3
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

2

the granting of the motion . . . .” Further, Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with

the Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or

Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” 

By order filed April 27, 2010, plaintiff was advised of the above requirements for

filing opposition under the Local Rules and cautioned that failure to comply with the Local

Rules might result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, by orders filed May 25, 2010 and

June 4, 2010, plaintiff was again advised of the requirements under the Local Rules, afforded

additional time to file opposition, cautioned that failure to file opposition would be deemed a

statement of nonopposition and would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 

Plaintiff has again failed to file an opposition. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), therefore, the court

deems the failure to file written opposition as a waiver of any opposition to the granting of

defendant’s motion. 

“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.” 

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). 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); Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364-65 (9th Cir.1986) .

In determining to recommend that this action be dismissed, the court has

considered the five factors set forth in Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with

the Local Rules has impeded the expeditious resolution of the instant litigation and has burdened

the court’s docket, consuming scarce judicial resources in addressing litigation which plaintiff

demonstrates no intention to pursue. Although public policy favors disposition of cases on their

merits, plaintiff’s failure to oppose the pending motion has precluded the court from doing so. In

addition, defendants are prejudiced by the inability to reply to opposition. Finally, the court has

repeatedly advised plaintiff of the requirements under the Local Rules and granted ample

additional time to oppose the pending motion, all to no avail. The court finds no suitable

alternative to dismissal of this action.

Case 2:10-cv-00483-JAM -JFM Document 16 Filed 07/15/10 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: July 15, 2010.

/014;harr0483.fsc.noop

Case 2:10-cv-00483-JAM -JFM Document 16 Filed 07/15/10 Page 3 of 3