Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01916/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01916-1/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 

JEFFREY-THOMAS: SMITH, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MATTHEW LANGFORD, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-1916 JAM GGH PS 

ORDER AND 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local 

Rule 302(c)(21). Defendant’s motion to dismiss is presently noticed for hearing on the February 

5, 2015, law and motion calendar of the undersigned. Opposition to motions, or a statement of 

non-opposition thereto, must be filed fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date. E.D. Cal. 

L. R. 230(c). Court records reflect that plaintiff failed to file opposition or a statement of nonopposition to the motion. 

 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.” 

E.D. Cal. L. R. 110; see Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Additionally, “[n]o 

party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments if written opposition 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:14-cv-01916-JAM-GGH Document 8 Filed 01/27/15 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

to the motion has not been timely filed.” E.D. Cal. L. R. 230(c).1 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), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa 

County, 693 F.3d 896, 925 (9th Cir. 2012); Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364-65 (9th 

Cir.1986). The Local Rules specifically provide that cases of persons appearing in propria 

persona who fail to comply with the Federal and Local Rules are subject to dismissal, judgment 

by default, and other appropriate sanctions. E.D. Cal. L. R. 183. 

 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The hearing date of February 5, 2015 is vacated.2 

 2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than February 12, 2015 why sanctions 

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

pending motion. 

 3. Plaintiff is directed to file opposition, if any, to the motion, or a statement of nonopposition thereto, no later than February 12, 2015. Failure to file opposition, or to file a 

statement of non-opposition, will be deemed a statement of non-opposition, and shall result in a 

recommendation that this action be dismissed. 

Dated: January 27, 2015 

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

GGH:076/Smith1916.osc 

 

1

 Moreover, failure to appear at hearing may be deemed withdrawal of opposition to a motion or 

may result in sanctions. E.D. Cal. L. R. 230(i). 

2

 If the court deems oral argument is needed, it will reschedule the hearing at a later date. 

Case 2:14-cv-01916-JAM-GGH Document 8 Filed 01/27/15 Page 2 of 2