(PC) Williams v. Adams

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: May 23, 2022
• Docket: 1:19-cv-01058
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 KENTRELL WILLIAMS, 1:19-cv-01058-DAD-GSA-PC

12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE OPPOSITION OR 13 vs. STATEMENT OF NON- OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT 14 ADAMS, et al., CDCR’S MOTION TO DISMISS WITHIN THIRTY DAYS 15 Defendants. (ECF No. 24.) 16

17 18 On April 1, 2022, defendant CDCR (“Defendant”) filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 19 24.) Kentrell Williams (“Plaintiff”) was required to file an opposition or a statement of non- 20 opposition to the motion within twenty-one days, but has not done so. Local Rule 230(l). 21 Local Rule 230(l) provides that the failure to oppose a motion “may be deemed a waiver 22 of any opposition to the granting of the motion . . .” The court may deem any failure to oppose 23 Defendant’s motion to dismiss as a waiver, and recommend that the motion be granted on that 24 basis. 25 Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper grounds for dismissal. U.S. v. 26 Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979). Thus, a court may dismiss an action for the plaintiff’s 27 failure to oppose a motion to dismiss, where the applicable local rule determines that failure to 28 oppose a motion will be deemed a waiver of opposition. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52 (9th 1 Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 838 (1995) (dismissal upheld even where plaintiff contends he 2 did not receive motion to dismiss, where plaintiff had adequate notice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 3 P. 5(b), and time to file opposition); cf. Marshall v. Gates, 44 F.3d 722, 725 (9th Cir. 1995); 4 Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 949-50 (9th Cir. 1993) (motion for summary 5 judgment cannot be granted simply as a sanction for a local rules violation, without an appropriate 6 exercise of discretion). The court may also dismiss this case for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with 7 the court’s order. See Local Rule 110; Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. Within thirty days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an 10 opposition, or statement of non-opposition to the motion to dismiss filed by 11 Defendant CDCR on April 1, 2022; and 12 2. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this 13 action. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15

16 Dated: May 23, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28