Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02378/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02378-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 18:2333 Civil Remedies: Anti-Terrorism Act of 1991

---

1

3:18-cv-2378-GPC-MDD

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEX GEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

FBI – SAN DIEGO,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:18-cv-2378-GPC-MDD

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS 

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT AND VACATING THE 

HEARING DATE

[ECF No. 12]

Before the Court is Defendant FBI’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint. ECF No. 12. Plaintiff has not filed any opposition. Defendant filed a reply 

in support of the unopposed motion on January 13, 2020. ECF No. 15. For the reasons 

discussed below the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion and vacates the hearing date.

BACKGROUND

On March 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against 

Defendant alleging that he reported a kidnapping case to Defendant in or around October 

2017. ECF No. 8. Plaintiff argues that Defendant is required to make available

information related to the kidnapping case under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 

U.S.C. § 552. In the motion to dismiss, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s FAC should be 

Case 3:18-cv-02378-GPC-MDD Document 17 Filed 01/27/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:18-cv-2378-GPC-MDD

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

dismissed because Plaintiff failed to properly serve the complaint and has additionally 

failed to state a cognizable claim. ECF No. 12. 

Plaintiff Alex Gee filed the original complaint on October 17, 2018. ECF No. 1. 

Plaintiff subsequently filed the FAC on March 29, 2019. ECF No. 8. On December 11, 

2019, the Court issued a briefing schedule requiring any opposition by Plaintiff to be 

filed on or before January 24, 2020 and scheduling a hearing for February 7, 2020. ECF 

No. 14. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. 

DISCUSSION

Local Rule 7.1.e.2. requires a party opposing a motion to file an opposition or 

statement of non-opposition within fourteen calendar days of the noticed hearing. As 

further described in Local Rule 7.1.f.3.a., any party choosing not to oppose a motion must 

file a written statement that he does not oppose the motion or otherwise request for ruling 

by the court. “If an opposing party fails to file the papers in the manner required by 

Local Rule 7.1.e.2, that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or

other request for ruling by the court.” Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c.

District courts have broad discretion to enact and apply local rules, including 

dismissal of a case for failure to comply with the local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 

F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir.1995); United States v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979).

The Ninth Circuit also permits dismissal pursuant to a local rule where the party is 

acting pro se. Even though the court has an obligation to liberally construe their 

pleadings, “pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure.” Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 

54 (citing King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987)). Before dismissing an 

action for failure to comply with local rules, the district court “weigh[s] 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 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 

(9th Cir. 1986)).

Case 3:18-cv-02378-GPC-MDD Document 17 Filed 01/27/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:18-cv-2378-GPC-MDD

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

Here, the Court concludes that “the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 

litigation,” “the court’s need to manage its docket,” and “the risk of prejudice to the 

defendants” weigh in favor of granting the Motion to Dismiss based on Plaintiff's failure 

to file an opposition. See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. The majority of the Ghazali factors 

weigh in favor of dismissal. 

The Court’s docket reflects that Plaintiff was served with copies of the motion to 

dismiss and the subsequent reply at the address listed by Plaintiff on the FAC –i.e., 5077 

Santa Susana, Santa Barbara, CA 93111. ECF Nos. 13 and 16. Therefore, because 

Plaintiff has failed to comply with Civil Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c, the Court finds good cause 

to grant Defendant’s unopposed motion to dismiss the FAC. 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss as unopposed. 

See Civ. Local R. 7.1.f.3.c. See also Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53; Holt v. I.R.S., 231 Fed. 

Appx. 557, 558 (9th Cir. 2007) (court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing action for

failure to file an opposition and rejecting pro se plaintiff's contention that the district 

court should have warned her of the consequences of failing to file an opposition). 

Plaintiff’s FAC is DISMISSED without prejudice, and the hearing on Defendant’s

motion, currently set for February 7, 2020, is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 27, 2020

Case 3:18-cv-02378-GPC-MDD Document 17 Filed 01/27/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3