(HC) Simms v. Lynch ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT LEE SIMMS, Case No. 2:21-cv-00035-KJM-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 JEFF LYNCH,1 ECF No. 12 15 Respondent. RESPONSE DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE 16 DAYS 17 On April 27, 2021, respondent filed a motion to dismiss this case. ECF No. 12. To date, 18 petitioner has not filed a response to the motion. 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 To manage its docket effectively, the court imposes deadlines on litigants and requires 25 litigants to meet those deadlines. The court may dismiss a case based on plaintiff’s failure to 26 27 1 Jeff Lynch is the Warden of California State Prison, Sacramento, the institute where plaintiff is currently housed. Accordingly, the court substitutes Jeff Lynch as respondent in this 28 case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d); Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992). 1 | prosecute or to comply with its orders or the local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Hells Canyon 2 | Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 3 | 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court has a 4 | duty to administer justice expeditiously. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 5 | 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 6 Petitioner will be given a chance to explain why the court should not dismiss the case 7 | based on his failure to timely file either an opposition or a statement of non-opposition. 8 | Petitioner’s failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure to comply with a court order 9 | and will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 10 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 11 1. Petitioner shall to show cause within twenty-one days why this case should not be 12 || dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the court’s local rules. 13 2. Should petitioner wish to continue with this action, he shall, within twenty-one days, 14 | file either an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to respondent’s motion. 15 3. Jeff Lynch is substituted as respondent, and the Clerk of Court is directed to amend the 16 | case name to Simms v. Lynch, 2:21-cv-00035-KJM-JDP. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 ( 1 Sty — Dated: _ June 21, 2021 ow 20 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28