Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01710/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01710-5/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL ANTHONY HOWARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

SGT. ENCINAS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-01710-DAD-EPG (PC)

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE 

OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF NONOPPOSITION TO F. HANNA’S MOTION 

TO DISMISS WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

Michael Howard (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 18, 2019, F. Hanna filed 

a motion to dismiss on the ground that he is not named in the Court’s order of service or the 

summons (W. Hanna is the named defendant). (ECF No. 28). Plaintiff was required to file an 

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

230(l)), but did not do so. Local Rule 230(l) provides that the failure “to file an opposition or to 

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

motion and may result in the imposition of sanctions.” 

“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). 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 

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

Case 1:18-cv-01710-DAD-EPG Document 34 Filed 01/14/20 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

upheld even where plaintiff contended 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). 

Despite Plaintiff’s failure to follow Local Rule 230(l), the Court will give Plaintiff an 

additional thirty days to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant F. Hanna’s

motion to dismiss. If Plaintiff does not oppose the motion because he agrees that F. Hanna is not 

the defendant named in the complaint, but still wants to proceed against W. Hanna,1 W. Hanna 

will need to be served, and Plaintiff will need to provide the Court with additional information so 

that he can be served. The Court notes that defense counsel has alleged that “there was no ‘W. 

Hanna’ employed at CSP-Corcoran in October 2018, and there is still no ‘W. Hanna’ employed at 

CSP-Corcoran.” (ECF No. 28, p. 4). 

The Court will deem the failure to oppose the motion to dismiss as a waiver of any 

opposition to that motion, and may recommend that the motion be granted on that basis. 

Additionally, if Plaintiff fails to oppose the motion or file a statement of non-opposition, the 

Court may recommend that F. Hanna and W. Hanna be dismissed because of Plaintiff’s failure to 

prosecute and failure to comply with a court order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an 

opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant F. Hanna’s motion to 

dismiss; and

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

oppose the motion to dismiss as a waiver of any opposition to that motion, and

may recommend that the motion be granted on that basis. Additionally, the Court 

 

1

If Plaintiff does not want to proceed against W. Hanna, Plaintiff may file a notice of voluntary dismissal as 

to W. Hanna.

Case 1:18-cv-01710-DAD-EPG Document 34 Filed 01/14/20 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

may recommend that F. Hanna and W. Hanna be dismissed because of Plaintiff’s

failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2020 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01710-DAD-EPG Document 34 Filed 01/14/20 Page 3 of 3