Romona Janine Wafer v. Lakeside Village Apartments, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California vacated the hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss after the pro se plaintiff failed to timely file an opposition. The court granted plaintiff a final opportunity to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition by February 4, 2026, warning that further failure could support dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Holdings

1. A pro se litigant's failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court's local rules, or a court order may support sanctions, including involuntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Plaintiff's failure to file an opposition violated Local Rules 110, 183(a), and 230(c), making the claims subject to dismissal.
2. Immediate dismissal was not ordered at this time because plaintiff was proceeding without counsel; instead, the court granted one final opportunity to respond. Failure to respond by February 4, 2026 would be construed as non-opposition and could provide an additional basis for recommending involuntary dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(b).

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff's failure to timely oppose defendants' motion to dismiss subjected the action to dismissal or other sanctions under the court's local rules and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
2. Whether the court should vacate the scheduled hearing and provide plaintiff one final opportunity to respond to the motion.

Disposition

other