(PC) Jones v. Plant ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIC JONES, Case No. 1:19-cv-00207-JDP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 13 v. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER 14 C/O PLANT, RESPONSE DUE IN THIRTY DAYS 15 Defendant. 16 17 On November 8, 2019, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint and directed him to 18 respond within thirty days. ECF No. 11. Plaintiff has not filed a response and the time to do so 19 has passed. Thus, the court will order plaintiff to show cause why his case should not be 20 dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order. 21 To manage its docket effectively, the court imposes deadlines on litigants and requires 22 litigants to meet those deadlines. The court may dismiss a case for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute 23 or failure to comply with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. 24 U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but 25 a district court has a duty to administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the 26 parties. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. The 27 court will give plaintiff a chance to explain why the court should not dismiss the case for his 28 wOAOe 4:4 UVM EV EVR MMU te PO ee AY eM 1 | failure to prosecute and to comply with a court order. Plaintiff's failure to respond to this order 2 | will constitute a failure to comply with a court order and will result in dismissal of this case. 3 Accordingly, plaintiff is ordered to show cause within thirty days why this case should not 4 | be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. ’ vil, —N prssann — Dated: _ May 11, 2020 8 UNI STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 | No. 204. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28