Oliveira v. United States of America ( 2020 )

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 DOMINGOS J. OLIVEIRA, CASE NO. 3:18-cv-00674-GPC-AHG 12 ORDER 13 Plaintiff, [ECF No. 9] 14 vs. 15 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; 16 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 17 SECURITY; CORECIVIC; and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, inclusive, 18 19 Defendants. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 October 11, 2019. ECF No. 9. After the motion was noticed for hearing on 3 January 17, 2020, the Court issued a briefing schedule requiring the Plaintiff, 4 Domingos J. Oliveira, to file his response brief on or before December 6, 2019. 5 On December 20, 2019, CoreCivic filed a notice of non-opposition to its motion to 6 dismiss. ECF No. 13. To date, Plaintiff has not filed any opposition. 7 Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2 requires a party opposing a motion to file an 8 opposition or statement of non-opposition within fourteen calendar days of the 9 noticed hearing (or when otherwise scheduled by the Court). Civ. Local R. 7.1.e.2; 10 Turner v. Berryhill, No. 17CV1130-CAB-BGS, 2018 WL 501010, at *3 (S.D. Cal. 11 Jan. 19, 2018). Failure to comply with the rule “may constitute a consent to the 12 granting of a motion.” Civ. Local R. 7.1.f.3.c. Local rules have the force of law, 13 United States v. Hvass, 355 U.S. 570, 574–75 (1958), and courts have discretion to 14 dismiss cases for failure to comply with the local rules. Ghazali v. Moran, 36 F.3d 15 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming grant of an unopposed motion to dismiss under 16 local rule by deeming a pro se litigant’s failure to oppose as consent to grant the 17 motion). Before dismissal, the district court “weigh[s] several factors: ‘(1) the 18 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 19 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 20 favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (4) the availability of less drastic 21 sanctions.’” Id. (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 22 1986)). 23 The Court concludes that the majority of the factors weigh in favor of 24 dismissal. By all indications, Plaintiff was aware of the impending deadline to file 25 his responsive pleadings. Five weeks have elapsed since the extended deadline, 26 and still Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. Thus, the Court finds that “the 27 public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation,” “the court’s need to 28 1 manage its docket,” and “the risk of prejudice to the defendant” all weigh in favor 2 of granting the motion to dismiss. See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 3 In light of the above, it is hereby ORDERED that CoreCivic’s motion to 4 | | dismiss is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the complaint, as stated 5 | | against CoreCivic, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 6 5 Dated: January 13, 2020 2 aplo C4 8 Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 a