Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02037/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02037-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William Harlan
Plaintiff
Hermann
Defendant
Owens
Defendant
Ross
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

WILLIAM HARLAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER OWENS, et 

al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-2037 GEB KJN P

ORDER

On January 7, 2015, defendants Owens, Hermann, and Ross filed a motion to dismiss

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12. Plaintiff has not opposed the motion. 

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 

the granting of the motion . . . .” On October 24, 2014, plaintiff was advised of the requirements 

for filing an opposition to a motion and that failure to oppose such a motion may be deemed a 

waiver of opposition to the motion. 

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.” In the order filed October 24, 2014, plaintiff was also advised that failure to comply 

with the Local Rules may result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed.

Case 2:14-cv-02037-GEB-KJN Document 22 Filed 02/11/15 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

Moreover, 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.

Finally, although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the January 13, 2015 

minute order was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to 

keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service 

of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within thirty days from the date 

of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition, if any, to the motion to dismiss. Failure to file an 

opposition will be deemed as consent to have the: (a) action dismissed for lack of prosecution; 

and (b) action dismissed based on plaintiff’s failure to comply with these rules and a court order. 

Such failure shall result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Dated: February 10, 2015

harl2037.nop

Case 2:14-cv-02037-GEB-KJN Document 22 Filed 02/11/15 Page 2 of 2