(PS) King v. CA Dept. of Water Resources ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ELISE KING, Case No. 2:17-cv-01257-JDP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 13 v. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF RESPONSE DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS WATER RESOURCES, et al., 15 ORDER VACATING THE DECEMBER 10, Defendants. 2020 MOTION HEARING 16 17 On November 6, 2020, defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings and 18 noticed the motion for hearing. ECF No. 33. Plaintiff has not responded, and the deadline to do 19 so has now passed. Accordingly, the court will order plaintiff to show cause why this case should 20 not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The court will also grant plaintiff another opportunity to 21 respond to the pending motion and vacate the hearing. 22 To manage its docket effectively, the court imposes deadlines on litigants and requires 23 litigants to meet those deadlines. The court may dismiss a case for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute 24 or failure to comply with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. 25 U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but 26 a district court has a duty to administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the 27 parties. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. The 28 1 | court will give plaintiff a chance to explain why the court should not dismiss the case for 2 | plaintiffs failure to prosecute. Plaintiff's failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure 3 | tocomply with a court order and will result in dismissal of this case. 4 Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that: 5 1. Plaintiff is ordered to show cause within 30 days why this case should not be 6 dismissed for failure to prosecute. 7 2. Plaintiffis ordered to file a response to defendants’ motion for judgment on the 8 pleadings, ECF No. 33, within 30 days of the date of entry of this order. 9 3. The motion hearing set for December 10, 2020 is hereby vacated. 10 4. Defendants’ motion for judgment, ECF No. 33, will be submitted on the briefs without 11 a hearing. Defendants may file a reply within seven days of service of plaintiff's 12 response. 13 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 ( 1 ow — Dated: _ December 9, 2020 Q_—_—. 16 JEREMY D. PETERSON 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28