(PS) Mehl v. Shrewsberry ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN-GLEN MEHL, No. 2:19-cv-1099-TLN-EFB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JOHN RICHARD SHREWSBERRY; WELLS FARGO BANK NATIONAL 15 ASSOCIATION, 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915.1 His 19 declaration makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(1) and (2). See ECF No. 2. 20 Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 21 Defendants have also filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which they noticed for 22 hearing for hearing on September 18, 2019. ECF No. 3. Court records reflect that plaintiff has 23 not filed an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion. 24 Local Rule 230(c) provides that opposition to the granting of a motion, or a statement of 25 non-opposition thereto, must be served upon the moving party, and filed with this court, no later 26 than fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date or, in this instance, by September 4, 2019. 27 1 This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the 28 undersigned under Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 1 | Local Rule 230(c) further provides that “[n]o party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a 2 || motion at oral arguments if opposition to the motion has not been timely filed by that party.” 3 || Local Rule 183, governing persons appearing in pro se, provides that failure to comply with the 4 | Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules may be grounds for dismissal, judgment by 5 || default, or other appropriate sanctions. Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the 6 || Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by 7 || statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” See also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 8 || 52,53 (9th Cir. 1995) (‘Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for 9 | dismissal.’”’). Pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure, even though pleadings are 10 | liberally construed in their favor. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). 11 Accordingly, good cause appearing, it is hereby ORDERED that: 12 1. Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted. 13 2. The hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 3) is continued to October 16, 14 | 2019 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 8. 15 3. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to defendants’ motion, or a statement of non- 16 || opposition thereto, no later than October 2, 2019. 17 4. Failure to file an opposition to the motion will be deemed a statement of non- 18 || opposition thereto, and may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack of 19 || prosecution and/or for failure to comply with court orders and this court’s Local Rules. See Fed. 20 | R. Civ. P. 41(b). 21 5. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiffs opposition, if any, on or before October 9, 22 | 2019. 23 6. Defendants’ request to appear telephonically at the September 18, 2019 hearing (ECF 24 || No. 6) is denied as moot. 25 | DATED: September 12, 2019. Doolin 7 Sod 4 “2 26 EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28