Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01279/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01279-5/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

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUCRETIA GALLOW,

Plaintiff, 1: 07 CV 01279 AWI YNP GSA (PC) 

vs. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

T. SMITH, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is Defendants’ motion to

dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust her

administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Plaintiff has failed to oppose the motion.

Local Rule 230(m) 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 plaintiff's failure to

oppose defendant's motion to dismiss 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 plaintiff's

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

1

Case 1:07-cv-01279-AWI-SKO Document 21 Filed 03/15/10 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

oppose a motion will be deemed a waiver of opposition. See Ghazali v.Moran, 46 F.3d 52 (9

th

Cir. 1995), cert. denied 116 S.Ct. 119 (1995) (dismissal upheld even where plaintiff contends he

did not receive motion to dismiss, where plaintiff had adequate notice, pursuant to F.R.C.P. 5(b),

and time to file opposition); cf. Marshall v. Gates, No. 93-5022, slip op. 99, 105-06 (9th Cir. Jan.

4, 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).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall, within thirty days of

the date of service of this order, show cause why this action should not be dismissed for her

failure to oppose the motion to dismiss. Plaintiff’s failure to do so will result in a

recommendation of dismissal.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 15, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:07-cv-01279-AWI-SKO Document 21 Filed 03/15/10 Page 2 of 2