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
How later courts described this case
- 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
- 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
- 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."
- refusing to 24 extend to motions to dismiss the requirement that a district court examine the merits of an 25 26 1 Schaaf names defendants: Nellis Auction Holdings LLC, Cret LLC, Nellis Auction Arizona LLC, Nellis Auction Colorado LLC, Nellis Auction New Jersey LLC, Nellis Auction Texas LLC, SAC Trust 2, Spencer Chupinsky, Halcyon Third Millenium Trust, and Kenneth Chupinsky. ECF No. 136. unopposed motion for summary judgment before summarily granting it pursuant to a local rule
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio, 693 F.3d 896 (2012)
46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (“Failure to follow a district court's 3 local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.”), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. 4 Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896
The opinion
PER CURIAM:
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
*54
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.