Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00674/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00674-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331vc Fed. Question: Violation of Constitutional 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

 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOMINGOS J. OLIVEIRA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY; CORECIVIC; and DOES 

1 THROUGH 100, inclusive,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:18-cv-00674-GPC-AHG

ORDER 

[ECF No. 9]

Case 3:18-cv-00674-GPC-AHG Document 14 Filed 01/13/20 PageID.<pageID> 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

Before the Court is Defendant CoreCivic’s Motion to Dismiss, filed on 

October 11, 2019. ECF No. 9. After the motion was noticed for hearing on 

January 17, 2020, the Court issued a briefing schedule requiring the Plaintiff, 

Domingos J. Oliveira, to file his response brief on or before December 6, 2019. 

On December 20, 2019, CoreCivic filed a notice of non-opposition to its motion to 

dismiss. ECF No. 13. To date, Plaintiff has not filed any opposition. 

Civil 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 (or when otherwise scheduled by the Court). Civ. Local R. 7.1.e.2; 

Turner v. Berryhill, No. 17CV1130-CAB-BGS, 2018 WL 501010, at *3 (S.D. Cal. 

Jan. 19, 2018). Failure to comply with the rule “may constitute a consent to the 

granting of a motion.” Civ. Local R. 7.1.f.3.c. Local rules have the force of law, 

United States v. Hvass, 355 U.S. 570, 574–75 (1958), and courts have discretion to 

dismiss cases for failure to comply with the local rules. Ghazali v. Moran, 36 F.3d 

52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming grant of an unopposed motion to dismiss under 

local rule by deeming a pro se litigant’s failure to oppose as consent to grant the 

motion). Before dismissal, 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 on their merits; and (4) the availability of less drastic 

sanctions.’” Id. (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 

1986)).

The Court concludes that the majority of the factors weigh in favor of 

dismissal. By all indications, Plaintiff was aware of the impending deadline to file 

his responsive pleadings. Five weeks have elapsed since the extended deadline, 

and still Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. Thus, the Court finds that “the 

public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation,” “the court’s need to 

Case 3:18-cv-00674-GPC-AHG Document 14 Filed 01/13/20 PageID.<pageID> 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

manage its docket,” and “the risk of prejudice to the defendant” all weigh in favor 

of granting the motion to dismiss. See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 

In light of the above, it is hereby ORDERED that CoreCivic’s motion to 

dismiss is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the complaint, as stated 

against CoreCivic, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Dated: January 13, 2020

Case 3:18-cv-00674-GPC-AHG Document 14 Filed 01/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3