Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Cyrus Ghazali v. John Moran, Sheriff Clark County Commissioners
Cyrus Ghazali v. John Moran, Sheriff Clark County Comm’rs, 46 F.3d 52 (9th Cir. 1995)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1995-01-24
- Topic
- litigation
holding that a court may dismiss an 7 action based on a party’s failure to comply with the court’s Local Rules | holding that a court may dismiss a case when a party 22 fails to comply with local rules | holding that a court may dismiss an 28 action based on a party’s failure to comply with the court’s Local Rules | holding that a court may dismiss an action based on a party's failure to comply with the court's 28 Local Rules | holding that failure to timely file an opposition to a motion 14 to dismiss as required by the Court’s Local Rules can be grounds for granting the motion | concluding that the court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action where the local rule provided that failure to oppose the motion "shall constitute a consent to the granting of the motion." | holding that even pro se litigants must comply with local rules | noting that although courts “construe pleadings liberally in their favor, pro se litigants are bound by the rules WASHINGTON V. KIJAKAZI 21 of procedure” | reiterating that 15|| although courts “construe pleadings liberally in their favor, pro se litigants are bound by the 16]| rules of procedure” | reiterating that although 10 courts “construe pleadings liberally in their favor, pro se litigants are bound by the rules of 11 procedure” | reiterating that although courts 20 “construe pleadings liberally in their favor, pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure” | reiterating that although courts “construe pleadings liberally in || their favor, pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure” | reiterating that although courts “construe pleadings liberally in their favor, pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure” | stating that failure to comply with a district court's local rules is a proper ground for dismissal | explaining that a court must weigh the same five factors to determine whether dismissal for failure to follow a local rule was an abuse of discretion | explaining that “[o]nly in rare 20 cases will [appeals courts] question the exercise of discretion in connection with the application of 21 local rules” (citation omitted) | explaining that a court must weigh the same five factors to determine whether dismissal for failure to follow a local rule was an abuse of discretion | explaining that a court must weigh the same five factors to determine whether dismissal for failure to follow a local rule was an abuse of discretion | explaining that a court must weigh the same five factors to determine whether dismissal for failure to follow a local rule was an abuse of discretion | noting that “pro se litigant 25 || are bound by the rules of procedure” | noting that “pro 20 || se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure” | reasoning that standards governing summary judgment motions do not apply to motions to dismiss, and holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in granting motion to dismiss for noncompliance with a local rule specifying requirements for response | noting that pro se litigants are 21 bound by the rules of procedure | noting that pro se 11 litigants are bound by the rules of procedure | noting that “pro se litigants are 9 bound by the rules of procedure” | noting that “pro se litigants are bound 2| bythe rules of procedure’ | noting that “pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure” | noting that pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure | affirming dismissal for failure to file timely opposition papers where plaintiff had 17 notice of the motion and ample time to respond | affirming dismissal for failure to file timely 27 opposition papers where plaintiff had notice of the motion and ample time to respond | affirming dismissal for failure to file timely opposition papers where 2 plaintiff had notice of the motion and ample time to respond | affirming dismissal for failure to file timely 4 opposition papers where plaintiff had notice of the motion and ample time to respond | affirming dismissal for fail
Citator
- Cited by
- 1286 opinions
Melissa Collins, Rawlings, Olson Cannon, Las Vegas, NV, for defendants-appellees.
[2] We review the district court's dismissal pursuant to its local rules for abuse of discretion.United States v. Warren,601 F.2d 471,474(9th Cir. 1979) "Only in rare cases will we question the exercise of discretion in connection with the application of local rules."Id.
[3] Under the Nevada local rule, "[t]he failure of the opposing party to file a memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to any motion shall constitute a consent to the granting of the motion." Dist.Nev.R. 140-6.
[4] Failure to follow a district court's local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.Warren,601 F.2d at 474(upholding comparable Dist.Ariz.R. 11(g)). Before dismissing the action, the district court is required to weigh several factors: "(1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases of their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions."Henderson v. Duncan,779 F.2d 1421,1423(9th Cir. 1986). If thePage 54district court does not consider these factors explicitly, we review the record independently to determine whether the district court abused its discretion.Id.at 1424.
[5] An independent review of the record demonstrates that the district judge did not abuse his discretion in entering the judgment of dismissal. Although Ghazali contends that he did not receive a copy of the motion to dismiss, the record indicates that Ghazali received notice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.5(b). Moreover, Ghazali was given ample time to respond to the motion to dismiss.
[6] Although we construe pleadings liberally in their favor, pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure.King v. Atiyeh,814 F.2d 565,567(9th Cir. 1987). Ghazali did not follow them, and his case was properly dismissed. A motion for summary judgment, which on its face does not even address the issues in the case and point out to the district court that there is an absence of evidence to support the case of the party with the burden of proof, cannot be granted simply as a sanction for a local rule violation, without an appropriate exercise of discretion.Marshall v. Gates,44 F.3d 722,723,724-25(9th Cir. 1995);Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc.,983 F.2d 943,949-50(9th Cir. 1993);see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,477 U.S. 317,325,106 S.Ct. 2548,2553-54,91 L.Ed.2d 265(1986). But this proposition does not help Ghazali.MarshallandHenryaddress only summary judgment motions, not motions to dismiss.
[7] Therefore, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion by entering the judgment of dismissal.See Warren,601 F.2d at 473-74.
[8]AFFIRMED.