Robbie Carl Ellington, Jr. v. City of Sacramento, et al.

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 10, 20252:25-cv-00158California429 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 TO SHOW CAUSE 14 CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On October 6, 2025, defendants filed a motion to dismiss this case for failure to state a 18 claim. ECF No. 22. To date, plaintiff has not responded to defendants’ motion. 19 Under the court’s local rules, a responding party is required to file an opposition or 20 statement of non-opposition to a motion no later than fourteen days after the date it was filed. 21 E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet 22 certain deadlines. The court may impose sanctions, including dismissing a case, for failure to 23 comply with its orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Hells Canyon 24 Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 25 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a…

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.