Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02324/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02324-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY CHAVARRIA,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

P. A. GREEN, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:10-cv-02324-LJO-GSA-PC

 

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO 

FILE OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT 

OF NON-OPPOSITION TO 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

DISMISS WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

(Doc. 24.)

On July 28, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. (Doc. 24.) Plaintiff Anthony 

Chavarria (“Plaintiff”) was required to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to 

the motion within twenty-one days, but has not done so. Local Rule 230(l).

Local Rule 230(l) provides that the failure to oppose a motion "may be deemed a waiver 

of any opposition to the granting of the motion..." The court may deem any failure to oppose 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss as a waiver, and recommend that the motion be granted on that 

basis.

Failure to follow a district court's local rules is a proper grounds for dismissal. U.S. v.

Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979). Thus, a court may dismiss an action for the 

plaintiff's failure to oppose a motion to dismiss, where the applicable local rule determines that 

failure to oppose a motion will be deemed a waiver of opposition. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 

F.3d 52 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 838 (1995) (dismissal upheld even where 

Case 1:10-cv-02324-DAD-EPG Document 26 Filed 09/09/14 Page 1 of 2
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

plaintiff contends he did not receive motion to dismiss, where plaintiff had adequate notice, 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b), and time to file opposition); cf. Marshall v. Gates, 44 F.3d 722, 

725 (9th Cir. 1995); Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 949-50 (9th Cir. 1993) 

(motion for summary judgment cannot be granted simply as a sanction for a local rules 

violation, without an appropriate exercise of discretion). The court may also dismiss this case 

for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s order. See Local Rule 110; Pagtalunan v. 

Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002)

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an

opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion to dismiss filed by 

Defendants on July 28, 2014; and

2. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this 

action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 8, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-02324-DAD-EPG Document 26 Filed 09/09/14 Page 2 of 2