(PC) Garcia v. Baniga

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 JOSE GARCIA, 1:19-cv-01258-GSA-PC

12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF 13 v. NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ROLAND RODRIGUEZ’S MOTION TO 14 U. BANIGA, M.D., et al., COMPEL WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

15 Defendants. (ECF No. 23.)

17 18 On July 2, 2020, defendant Roland Rodriguez (“Defendant”) filed a motion to compel. 19 (ECF No. 23.) Plaintiff was required to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the 20 motion within twenty-one days, but has not done so. Local Rule 230(l). 21 Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper grounds for dismissal. U.S. v. 22 Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979). Moreover, when the court orders Plaintiff to respond 23 to a motion, the court may dismiss an action for Plaintiff's failure to comply with the court’s 24 order. See Local Rule 110; Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 26 1. Within thirty days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an 27 opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion to compel filed by 28 Defendant on July 2, 2020; and 1 2. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this 2 action. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4

5 Dated: August 17, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28