Cyrus Ghazali v. John Moran, Sheriff Clark Cnty. Commissioners, 46 F.3d 52 (9th Cir. 1995). · Go Syfert
Search
Cyrus Ghazali v. John Moran, Sheriff Clark Cnty. Commissioners, 46 F.3d 52 (9th Cir. 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
Quick Summary

A district court may affirm a dismissal for failure to comply with local rules (affirming dismissal for noncompliance with local rule).

A pro se prisoner appeals the dismissal of his civil rights action after he failed to file an opposition to a motion to dismiss. The central question is whether a district court abuses its discretion by dismissing a case for violation of local rules. Although pleadings are construed liberally in favor of pro se litigants, they remain bound by the rules of procedure. Because the district court properly applied local rules regarding the failure to file a memorandum in opposition, and the appellant received notice and sufficient time to respond, the dismissal was proper.

3,884 citation events (3,855 in the last 25 years) across 28 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Chad Michael Creel v. Ins. Agents, et al., No. 2:25-cv-02101 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2026)
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995 2010 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 53 Dismissal for noncompliance with local rules1,255 citing casesdismissal for noncompliance with local rule82 citing courts put it this way · 205 listed here
Show 195 more citing casesLoad the other 18
At page 54 Pro se litigants bound by rules of procedure462 citing cases“pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure.”78 citing courts quote it · 203 listed here
  • Chad Michael Creel v. Ins. Agents, et al., No. 2:25-cv-02101 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2026).
    (Although we construe pleadings liberally in their 25 favor, pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure.)
  • Pena, No. 3:24-cv-01781 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2026). 2 cites
    (Although we construe pleadings liberally in their favor, 18 se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure.)
  • Thomas, No. 2:26-cv-04476 (D. Ariz. Sept. 2, 2026).
    (Although we construe pleadings liberally in their favor, pro se litigants are bound 9 by the rules of procedure.)
  • Sheila Halousek v. State of California, et al., No. 2:25-cv-02659 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2026).
    (Although we construe pleadings liberally in their 21 favor, pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure.)
  • Chad Michael Creel v. The State Bar of California, et al., No. 2:26-cv-02555 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2026).
    (Although we construe pleadings liberally in their favor, pro se litigants are bound by the 11 rules of procedure.)
  • Kerestenzis, No. 2:24-cv-03353 (E.D. Cal. July 27, 2026).
    (Although we construe 27 pleadings liberally in their favor, pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure.)
  • Julian Van Cole v. Newrez LLC, et al., No. 2:26-cv-02247 (D. Ariz. July 14, 2026). 2 cites
    (pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure)
  • Beasley, No. 2:22-cv-00612 (D. Nev. June 9, 2026).
    (Although we construe pleadings liberally in their favor, 25 pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure.)
  • United States v. Westreich, No. 24-7184 (9th Cir. Mar. 18, 2026).unpublished
    ([P]ro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure.)
  • Maluf, No. 2:23-cv-00115 (D. Nev. Nov. 17, 2025).
    (Although we 5 construe pleadings liberally in their favor, pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure.)
Show 193 more citing cases
At page 52 Reviewing dismissal based on failure to follow local rules18 citing cases“failure to follow a district court's local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.”29 citing courts quote it
Show 8 more citing cases
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Cyrus GHAZALI, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
John MORAN, Sheriff; Clark County Commissioners, Defendants-Appellees
94-15489.
Docket on CourtListener (RECAP)
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jan 24, 1995.
Published opinion
46 F.3d 52
95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 597
1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 1276
1995 WL 23666
Cyrus Ghazali, pro se, for plaintiff-appellant., Melissa Collins, Rawlings, Olson & Cannon, Las Vegas, NV, for defendants-appel-lees.
Wallace, Hall, Kleinfeld.
Cited by 2,613 opinions  |  Published
6 passages pin-cited by 9 cases
Pinpoint authority: #7,174 of 633,719
Citer courts: E.D. California (3) · Ninth Circuit (2) · D. Nevada (2) · D. Arizona (1) · D. South Carolina (1)
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.