Wichman v. City of San Luis Obispo

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 4, 2026
• Docket: 24-4518
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 4 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CAROLINE WICHMAN, individually and No. 24-4518 as successor in interest to Edward Zamora D.C. No. Giron II, deceased, 2:22-cv-03156-DMG-RAO Plaintiff - Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v.

CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal entity; COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal entity; BRYAN AMOROSO, an individual; STEVE OROZCO, an individual; IAN PARKINSON, an individual; RICK SCOTT, an individual; DAN DOW,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 29, 2026**

Before: RAWLINSON, H.A. THOMAS, and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Caroline Wichman (Wichman) appeals the district court’s grant of the

motions to dismiss the second amended complaint (SAC) filed by Defendants-

Appellees City of San Luis Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo, Bryan Amoroso,

Steve Orozco, Ian Parkinson, and Rick Scott. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Wichman’s SAC alleged that Defendants-Appellees falsely accused

Wichman and her family of committing crimes, subjected Wichman and her family

to threats by publicly castigating them, and violated her civil rights. The district

court granted the motions to dismiss on the basis that Wichman failed to timely

oppose the motion as required by the local rules. Wichman timely appealed.

“The rulings of the district courts regarding local rules are reviewed for

abuse of discretion. . . .” Alliance of Nonprofits for Ins., Risk Retention Grp. v.

Kipper, 712 F.3d 1316, 1327 (9th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). “Only in rare cases

will we question the exercise of discretion in connection with the application of

local rules.” Easley v. Collection Serv. of Nev., 910 F.3d 1286, 1290 (9th Cir.

2018) (citation omitted).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motions to

dismiss. See Guam Sasaki Corp. v. Diana’s Inc., 881 F.2d 713, 718-19 (9th Cir.

1989). Local Rule 7-9 of the Central District of California required Wichman to

file an opposition to the motions no later than twenty-one days before the hearing

2 24-4518 date for the motions. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9. Wichman failed to do so. Under the

district’s local rules, failure to file a pleading “within the deadline, may be deemed

consent to the granting . . . of the motion.” C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12. Although “we

afford leeway to pro se parties, who appear without counsel and without the benefit

of sophisticated representation,” Huffman v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016, 1021 (9th

Cir. 2023), we have also acknowledged that “there are limits to what a court must

do to accommodate a party appearing pro se.” Washington v. Kijakazi, 72 F.4th

1029, 1040 (9th Cir. 2023) (citations omitted).

Wichman asserts that she made the mistake of not opposing the motions to

dismiss because she was unaware that she was required to do so. But, as the

district court noted, it had previously granted Wichman an extension to oppose

Defendants-Appellees’ motions to dismiss, and had “repeatedly considered”

untimely documents filed by Wichman. In its order granting the prior motions to

dismiss, the court “warned [Wichman] that [a] further failure to timely respond to a

pending motion . . . shall result in the dismissal of this action with prejudice.”

Notwithstanding her pro se status, Wichman “is expected to abide by the rules of

the court in which [s]he litigates.” Carter v. Comm’r, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th

Cir. 1986) (citations omitted). Given that she did not comply with the local rules

despite a previous warning, she has not demonstrated that this is one of the “rare

cases” in which we “will . . . question the [district court’s] exercise of discretion in

3 24-4518 connection with the application of local rules.” Easley, 910 F.3d at 1290 (citation

and internal quotation marks omitted)

AFFIRMED.

4 24-4518