(PS) Devi v. Sacramento Bhartiya Sabha

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VINEETA DEVI, No. 2:24-cv-00689-DJC-CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 SACRAMENTO BHARTIYA SABHA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 On March 13, 2025, defendant Sacramento Bhartiya Sabha filed a motion to dismiss 19 plaintiff Vineeta Devi’s first amended complaint (“FAC”) and noticed the motion for hearing on 20 April 23, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. before the undersigned. 1 (ECF No. 20.) On March 18, 2025, 21 defendant City of Sacramento filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s FAC and noticed the motion 22 for hearing on April 17, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. before the undersigned. (ECF No. 21.) On the 23 Court’s own motion, defendant City of Sacramento’s motion was reset for hearing on April 23, 24 2025. (ECF No. 22.) Pursuant to this court’s Local Rules, any opposition to the motions was to 25 be filed and served no later than fourteen (14) days after the date the motion was filed. Further, a 26 responding party who has no opposition to the granting of the motion is required to serve and file 27 1 This action proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and E.D. Cal. 28 Local Rule 302(c)(21). 1 a statement of non-opposition. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c) (“[a] responding party who has no 2 opposition to the granting of the motion shall serve and file a statement to that effect, specifically 3 designating the motion in question”). That deadline has now passed, and plaintiff has not filed 4 either a statement of opposition or a statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motions. 5 A district court may impose sanctions, including involuntary dismissal of a plaintiff’s case 6 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), where that plaintiff fails to prosecute his or her 7 case or fails to comply with the court’s orders, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the court’s 8 local rules. See e.g., Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 9 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating that courts may dismiss an action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 10 Procedure 41(b) sua sponte for a plaintiff's failure to prosecute or comply with the rules of civil 11 procedure or the court's orders); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) 12 (“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss an action for 13 failure to comply with any order of the court.”). 14 Here, plaintiff, who proceeds without counsel, failed to file a written opposition or 15 statement of non-opposition by the required deadlines, and therefore has not complied with Local 16 Rule 230(c). Plaintiff’s failure to file any opposition indicates to the court that plaintiff may be 17 consenting to the dismissal of this action. See Local Rule 230(c) (“A failure to file a timely 18 opposition may also be construed by the Court as a non-opposition to the motion.”). Thus, 19 plaintiff’s claims are subject to dismissal. 20 Given plaintiff’s pro se status, the court will not recommend dismissal at this time. 21 Instead, the court will vacate the April 23, 2025, hearings and provide plaintiff one final 22 opportunity to either respond to defendant’s motion to dismiss or to file a statement of non- 23 opposition. After the expiration of the deadlines below, the court will decide the matter on the 24 record and written briefing only. See L.R. 230(c) (“[n]o party will be entitled to be heard in 25 opposition to a motion at oral arguments if opposition to the motion has not been timely filed by 26 that party.”). Plaintiff is cautioned that any further failure to comply with the court’s Local Rules 27 and this order by failing to file either an opposition or statement of non-opposition will be 28 construed as non-opposition to the motions and will constitute additional grounds for dismissal 1 | under Rule 41(b). 2 ORDER 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The April 23, 2025, hearing on defendant Sacramento Bhartiya Sabha’s motion to 5 dismiss (ECF No. 20) is VACATED; 6 2. The April 23, 2025, hearing on defendant City of Sacramento’s motion to dismiss 7 (ECF No. 21) is VACATED; 8 3. Within fourteen (14) days of this order, plaintiff shall file a written opposition or a 9 statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss; 10 a. Plaintiffs failure to file written oppositions will be deemed statements of non- 11 opposition to the pending motions and consent to the granting of the motions, 12 and shall constitute an additional ground for the imposition of appropriate 13 sanctions, including a recommendation that plaintiffs entire case be 14 involuntarily dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 15 Procedure 41(b); 16 4. Within seven (7) days of any opposition, defendants may file a written reply; and 17 5. The matter is deemed submitted on the papers. 18 | Dated: April 8, 2025 / a8 } if | / } a —, 19 CAROLYNK. DELANEY 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 5, devi.0689.24 24 25 26 27 28