(PS) Ellington v. City of Sacramento

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJuly 8, 20252:25-cv-00158California437 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBBIE CARL ELLINGTON, Jr., Case No. 2:25-cv-0158-DC-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants, 16 17 On May 14, 2025, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s second amended 18 complaint for failure to state a claim. ECF No. 15. To date, plaintiff has not responded to 19 defendants’ motion. 20 Under the court’s local rules, a responding party is required to file an opposition or 21 statement of non-opposition to a motion no later than fourteen days after the date it was filed. 22 E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet 23 certain deadlines. The court may impose sanctions, including dismissing a case, for failure to 24 comply with its orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Hells Canyon 25 Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 26 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988). Involuntary…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.