Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-03026/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-03026-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lal Dev
Plaintiff
Patrick R. Donahoe
Defendant

Document Text:

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 

LAL DEV, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PATRICK R. DONAHOE, 

POSTMASTER GENERAL OF THE 

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:12-cv-3026-JAM-EFB PS 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

 On December 18, 2013, defendant filed a motion to for summary judgment.1

 ECF No. 27. 

Defendant noticed the hearing on that motion for January 15, 2014. Id. 

 Court records reflect that plaintiff has not filed an opposition or statement of nonopposition to the motion for summary judgment. Local Rule 230(c) provides that opposition to 

the granting of a motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, must be served upon the 

moving party, and filed with this court, no later than fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing 

date or, in this instance, by January 2, 2014. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a). Local Rule 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.” 

 1

 This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). 

Case 2:12-cv-03026-JAM-EFB Document 31 Filed 01/06/14 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

 Local Rule 183, governing persons appearing in pro se, provides that failure to comply 

with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules may be grounds for dismissal, 

judgment by default, or other appropriate sanctions. Local Rule 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.” See also 

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules 

is a proper ground for dismissal.”). 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). 

 Accordingly, good cause appearing, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

 1. The hearing on defendant’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 27, is continued 

to February 5, 2014. 

 2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than January 22, 2014, why sanctions 

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

the pending motion. 

 3. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, 

no later than January 22, 2014. 

 4. Failure of plaintiff to file an opposition to the motion will be deemed a statement of 

non-opposition thereto, and may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack 

of prosecution and/or for failure to comply with court orders and this court’s Local Rules. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

 5. Defendant may file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition, if any, on or before January 29, 

2014. 

DATED: January 6, 2014. 

Case 2:12-cv-03026-JAM-EFB Document 31 Filed 01/06/14 Page 2 of 2