Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02736/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02736-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBIN LEE HOFFMANN,

Plaintiff,

v.

JUSTIN JOURDAN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-2736 MCE KJN P

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff is a former county jail inmate, proceeding pro se, with a civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 7, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss 

plaintiff’s third amended complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Defendants filed a reply, noting 

that no opposition had been filed with the court or served on defendants as of January 14, 2016. 

(ECF No. 30.) On January 19, 2016, plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. (ECF 

No. 31.) The opposition was signed by plaintiff on January 12, 2016. 

Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), oppositions are due no later than 21 days from the date the 

motion is served. Id. Defendants’ motion was served on December 7, 2015; therefore, plaintiff’s 

opposition was due on or before December 28, 2015. Thus, plaintiff’s January 19, 2016 

opposition was untimely. 

Local Rule 230(l) provides in part: “Failure of the responding party to file written 

opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to 

Case 2:14-cv-02736-MCE-KJN Document 32 Filed 01/21/16 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

the granting of the motion . . . .” Id. On June 4, 2015, plaintiff was informed that all motions, 

including motions under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, shall be briefed 

pursuant to Local Rule 230(l). (ECF No. 19 at 3.) Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply 

with the Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by 

statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” Id. These sanctions may include the 

imposition of monetary sanctions. In the June 4, 2015 order, plaintiff was also advised that 

failure to comply with the Local Rules may result in a recommendation that the action be 

dismissed.

Finally, Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

Involuntary Dismissal; Effect. If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or 

to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move 

to dismiss the action or any claim against it. Unless the dismissal 

order states otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision (b) and 

any dismissal not under this rule--except one for lack of 

jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join a party under Rule 

19--operates as an adjudication on the merits.

Id. 

In her opposition, plaintiff makes no statement concerning the lateness of her filing. 

Plaintiff did not seek an extension of time in which to file an opposition, and was not granted 

leave to file a late opposition.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff show cause, within twenty-one 

days, why the court should not impose sanctions based on her late filing. 

Dated: January 21, 2016

hoff2736.osc

Case 2:14-cv-02736-MCE-KJN Document 32 Filed 01/21/16 Page 2 of 2