Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01206/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01206-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ORALEE WOODSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-01206-MCE-CKD

ORDER

This is a civil rights action in which Plaintiff Oralee Woodson (“Plaintiff”) is 

proceeding through counsel. Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5), 

which seeks dismissal of several of Plaintiff’s claims on grounds of qualified immunity.1 

A hearing on Defendants’ Motion was scheduled for August 6, 2015. The Court, 

however, vacated that hearing in light of Plaintiff’s failure to timely file either an 

opposition or a statement of non-opposition. ECF No. 7; see also E.D. Cal. Local R.

230(c) (requiring that either an opposition or a statement of non-opposition be filed “not 

less than fourteen (14) days preceding the noticed (or continued) hearing date”).

The Court also ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing why this case should not 

be dismissed for noncompliance with the Local Rules and/or court orders, failure to 

 1

 Specifically, Defendants seek dismissal of the fourth and sixth through twelfth causes of action, 

as well as Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages against Defendant Department of Corrections & 

Rehabilitation. 

Case 2:15-cv-01206-MCE-CKD Document 9 Filed 08/11/15 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

27

28

2

prosecute pursuant to this Court’s inherent authority to control its docket, and/or Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). ECF No. 7. On August 4, 2015, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a 

response to the order to show cause in which he accepted responsibility for “the 

calendaring error.” ECF No. 8 at 2. Although Plaintiff’s counsel has filed a response to 

the order to show cause, he has still not filed either an opposition to Defendant’s Motion 

to Dismiss or a statement of non-opposition to that 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) (per curiam). 

Before dismissing the action, the district court is required to 

weigh several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious 

resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its 

docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the 

public policy favoring disposition of cases of their merits; and 

(5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.

Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

As noted above, Local Rule 230(c) requires that a responding party file either an 

opposition or a statement of non-opposition to a motion not less than fourteen (14) days 

before the hearing date. Plaintiff, by not filing either an opposition or a statement of nonopposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, failed to comply with Local Rule 230(c). As 

to the factors that the Ninth Circuit identified and enumerated in Ghazali: the first three 

factors favor dismissal, and the fourth weighs against dismissal. The Court finds that the 

fifth factor is neutral, as there are both less drastic sanctions (e.g., monetary sanctions) 

and more drastic sanctions (e.g., dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint outright and closing this 

action) available. On balance, the Court finds that these factors support dismissal of the 

causes of action identified in Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. 

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:15-cv-01206-MCE-CKD Document 9 Filed 08/11/15 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

27

28

3

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s 

fourth and sixth through twelfth causes of action are DISMISSED, as is Plaintiff’s claim 

for punitive damages against Defendant Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 10, 2015

Case 2:15-cv-01206-MCE-CKD Document 9 Filed 08/11/15 Page 3 of 3