Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01211/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01211-2/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 

FELICIA CLARK, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-1211-JAM-EFB PS (TEMP) 

ORDER 

 Defendants moved to dismiss this action and noticed their motion for hearing on February 

10, 2016. ECF No. 11. Court records reflect that plaintiff has not filed a timely opposition or 

statement of non-opposition to the motion. 

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. 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.” 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 

Case 2:15-cv-01211-JAM-DB Document 13 Filed 02/03/16 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

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 defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 11) is continued to March 2, 

2016. 

 2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than February 17, 2016, why sanctions 

should not be imposed for the failure to timely file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition 

to the pending motion.1

 3. Plaintiffs shall file an opposition to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition 

thereto, no later than February 17, 2016. 

 4. Failure of to file an opposition to the motion will be deemed a statement of nonopposition thereto, and may result in a recommendation that this 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. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition, if any, on or before February 24, 

2016. 

DATED: February 3, 2016. 

 1

 Alternatively, if plaintiff wishes to dismiss this action, he may do so by filing a notice of 

voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Case 2:15-cv-01211-JAM-DB Document 13 Filed 02/03/16 Page 2 of 2