(HC) Battle v. David Holbrook ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AUTHUR J.M. BATTLE, III, Case No. 2:20-cv-01851-JAM-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 13 v. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL RULES 14 DAVID HOLBROOK,1 ECF No. 17 15 Respondent. RESPONSE DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE 16 DAYS 17 On May 7, 2021, respondent filed a motion to dismiss this case. ECF No. 17. To date, 18 petitioner has not filed a response. 19 In cases where a party is incarcerated and proceeding without counsel, a responding party 20 is required to file either an opposition or a statement of non-opposition not more than twenty-one 21 days after the motion is served. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(l). Failure “to file an opposition or to file a 22 statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the 23 motion and may result in the imposition of sanctions.” Id. 24 25 26 1 David Holbrook is the Warden of Chuckawalla Valley State Prison, the institution where 27 plaintiff is currently housed. Accordingly, the court substitutes David Holbrook as respondent in this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d); Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 28 1992). 1 To manage its docket effectively, the court imposes deadlines and requires litigants to 2 | meet them. The court may dismiss a case based on plaintiffs failure to prosecute or to comply 3 | with its orders or the local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. 4 | Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 5 | 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court has a duty to administer 6 || justice expeditiously. See Pagtalunan vy. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); 7 | Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 8 I will give petitioner a chance to explain why the court should not dismiss the case based 9 | on his failure to timely file either an opposition or a statement of non-opposition. Petitioner’s 10 | failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure to comply with a court order and will result 11 || ina recommendation that this action be dismissed. 12 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 13 1. Petitioner shall to show cause within twenty-one days why this case should not be 14 || dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the court’s local rules. 15 2. Should petitioner wish to continue with this action, he shall, within twenty-one days, 16 | file either an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to respondent’s motion. 17 3. David Holbrook is substituted as respondent, and the Clerk of Court is directed to 18 || amend the case name to Battle v. Holbrook, 2:20-cv-01851-JAM-JDP. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 ( q Sty - Dated: _ June 23, 2021 □□ 22 JEREMY D. PETERSON 54 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28