From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ghazali v. Moran

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jan 24, 1995
46 F.3d 52 (9th Cir. 1995)

Summary

holding that even pro se litigants must comply with local rules

Summary of this case from Terry v. Quijote

Opinion

No. 94-15489.

Submitted January 11, 1995.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4.

Decided January 24, 1995.

Cyrus Ghazali, pro se, for plaintiff-appellant.

Melissa Collins, Rawlings, Olson Cannon, Las Vegas, NV, for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.

Before WALLACE, Chief Judge, HALL and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.



Cyrus Ghazali, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that his constitutional rights were violated while he was a pretrial detainee at the Clark County Detention Center. The district court dismissed Ghazali's action pursuant to a Nevada district court local rule because Ghazali failed to file an opposition to the motion of Sheriff Moran and the Commissioners to compel/motion to dismiss. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

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.

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.

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 the district court does not consider these factors explicitly, we review the record independently to determine whether the district court abused its discretion. Id. at 1424.

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.

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. Marshall and Henry address only summary judgment motions, not motions to dismiss.

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.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Ghazali v. Moran

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jan 24, 1995
46 F.3d 52 (9th Cir. 1995)

holding that even pro se litigants must comply with local rules

Summary of this case from Terry v. Quijote

holding district court did not abuse discretion by summarily granting unopposed motion to dismiss pursuant to local rule that permitted but did not require dismissal

Summary of this case from Harris v. Cnty. of San Diego

holding district court did not abuse discretion by summarily granting unopposed motion to dismiss pursuant to local rule that permitted but did not require dismissal

Summary of this case from Jah Healing Kemetic Temple of Divine Church, Inc. v. Cnty. of San Diego

holding that a district court is not required to examine the merits of an unopposed motion before summarily granting it pursuant to a local rule

Summary of this case from Baw v. United States

holding that a pro se litigant's failure to follow a court's local rules and file a timely opposition to a motion to dismiss is proper grounds for dismissal

Summary of this case from Smith v. Cnty. of Santa Cruz

holding that a district court may grant an unopposed motion to dismiss when a local rule permits

Summary of this case from Nguyen v. Presley

holding that while their pleadings are construed liberally, "pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure"

Summary of this case from Wo of Ideafarm v. Mountain View Police Dep't

holding that pro se litigants are bound by the same rules and procedures as other litigants

Summary of this case from Banschbach v. Beckwith

holding that pro se litigants are bound by the same rules and procedures as other litigants

Summary of this case from Banschbach v. Kohut

holding that pro se litigants are bound by the same rules and procedures as other litigants

Summary of this case from Rae v. United States

holding that where the plaintiff failed to file an opposition to a motion to dismiss, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action pursuant a local rule stating that a party's failure to file an opposition to a motion "shall constitute a consent to the granting of the motion"

Summary of this case from Murphy v. Dep't of Children & Family

holding that district court did not err in dismissing complaint for failure to comply with local rule

Summary of this case from Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. R&S St. Rose, LLC (In re R&S St. Rose, LLC)

holding that district court did not err in dismissing complaint for failure to comply with local rule

Summary of this case from Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. R&S St. Rose, LLC (In re R&S St. Rose, LLC)

holding that "pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure"

Summary of this case from Shepard v. Bell

holding that pro se litigants are bound by the court's local rules of procedure, and affirming the district court's dismissal based on pro se litigants failure to file a timely opposition

Summary of this case from Nomura v. Amazon.com, Inc.

holding that the district court did not err in dismissing a pro se plaintiff's civil rights complaint for failing to comply with a local rule

Summary of this case from Hernandez v. Parry

holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in summarily granting defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to local rule where pro se plaintiff had time to respond to motion but failed to do so

Summary of this case from Houston v. Arizona State Bd. of Educ.

holding that a district court did not err in summarily granting a defendant's motion to dismiss where the local rule stated that "[t]he failure of the opposing party to [respond] shall constitute a consent to the granting of the motion" and where the pro se plaintiff "was given ample time to respond" but failed to do so

Summary of this case from Martineau v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

holding that district court did not err in summarily granting the defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to a local rule where the plaintiff had time to respond to motion but failed to do so

Summary of this case from BOERSMA v. BMO HARRIS BANK, N.A.

holding that district court did not err in summarily granting the defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to a local rule where the plaintiff had time to respond to motion but failed to do so

Summary of this case from Fox v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

holding that district court did not err in summarily granting the defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to a local rule where the plaintiff had time to respond to motion but failed to do so

Summary of this case from Vercauteren v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

holding that a pro se litigant's failure to follow a court's local rules and file a timely opposition to a motion to dismiss is proper grounds for dismissal

Summary of this case from Justo v. Charter Capital Corporation

holding that a pro se litigant's failure to follow a court's local rules and file a timely opposition to a motion to dismiss is proper grounds for dismissal

Summary of this case from SISTERS OF NOTRE DAME DE NAMUR v. GARNETT-MURRAY

holding that a district court did not err in summarily granting a motion to dismiss pursuant to a local rule where plaintiff had time to respond but failed to do so

Summary of this case from CML-Az GM, LLC v. Greenfield Main, LLC

holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in summarily granting defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to local rule where pro se plaintiff had time to respond to motion but failed to do so

Summary of this case from Puzz v. Chase Home Finance, LLC
Case details for

Ghazali v. Moran

Case Details

Full title:CYRUS GHAZALI, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. JOHN MORAN, SHERIFF; CLARK COUNTY…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jan 24, 1995

Citations

46 F.3d 52 (9th Cir. 1995)

Citing Cases

Woods v. City of Scottsdale

"Failure to follow a district court's local rules is a proper ground for dismissal." Ghazali v. Moran, 46…

Gee v. FBI - San Diego

District courts have broad discretion to enact and apply local rules, including dismissal of a case for…