Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02060/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02060-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOE N. HARRIS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2060 DFL EFB PS

vs.

MICHAEL W. WYNNE, ORDER

Defendant. 

 /

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, which was referred to the undersigned

pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21). On January 17, 2007, defendant filed a motion to dismiss

pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) and 4(m). That motion is presently

noticed for hearing on February 21, 2007, in Courtroom No. 25, before the undersigned. 

Local Rule 78-230(c) provides that opposition to the granting of a motion must be filed

fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date. Court records reflect that plaintiff has failed to

file either an opposition to the motion or a statement of non-opposition. Local Rule 78-230(c)

further provides that “[n]o party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral

arguments if opposition to the motion has not been timely filed by that party.” 

Local Rule 83-183, governing persons appearing in propria persona, provides that failure

to comply with the Federal Rules and the Local Rules may be ground for dismissal, judgment by

Case 2:06-cv-02060-JAM-EFB Document 9 Filed 02/08/07 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

2

default, or other appropriate sanction. “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). Pro se litigants are

bound by the rules of procedure, even though pleadings are liberally construed in their favor. 

King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Finally, Local Rule 11-110 provides that

failure to comply with the Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and

all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” 

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The hearing date of February 21, 2007, is vacated. Hearing on defendant’s motion is

continued to March 14, 2007.

2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than February 28, 2007, why sanctions

should not be imposed for failure timely to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to

the pending motion.

3. Plaintiff is directed to file opposition, if any, to the motion, or a statement of nonopposition thereto, no later than February 28, 2007. Failure to file an opposition and appear at

hearing will be deemed a statement of non-opposition, and shall result in a recommendation that

this action be dismissed.

DATED: February 7, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02060-JAM-EFB Document 9 Filed 02/08/07 Page 2 of 2