Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00165/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00165-7/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

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRADELL M. DIXON,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. ARMAS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-00165-DAD-EPG (PC)

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE 

OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF NONOPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ARMAS’S

MOTION TO DISMISS WITHIN THIRTY 

DAYS

Tradell Dixon (APlaintiff@) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. On November 18, 2016, 

defendant M. Armas filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 19). Plaintiff was required to file an 

opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion within twenty-one days (Local Rule 

230(l)), but has not done so. 

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 will deem any failure to oppose 

Defendant’s 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 a plaintiff’s 

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

Case 1:13-cv-00165-DAD-EPG Document 32 Filed 12/28/16 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

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 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. Heinemann v. Satterberg, 731 F.3d 914, 916 (9th Cir. 2013)

(holding that a motion for summary judgment cannot be granted based on a failure to file 

opposition, regardless of any local rule to the contrary). 

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 

Defendant M. Armas; and 

2. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the Court will deem the failure to 

respond as a waiver and may recommend that the motion to dismiss be granted on 

that basis.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 28, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00165-DAD-EPG Document 32 Filed 12/28/16 Page 2 of 2