(PC) Cato v. Darst ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES CATO, Case No. 2:17-cv-01873-TLN-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 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 M. DURST, et al., ECF No. 57 15 Defendants. RESPONSE DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS 16 17 On October 6, 2020, defendants Romero and Darst filed a motion to compel plaintiff to 18 provide responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents. ECF No. 57. To 19 date, plaintiff has filed neither an opposition nor a statement of non-opposition to the motion. 20 In cases where a party is incarcerated and proceeding without counsel, a responding party 21 is required to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to a motion not more twenty-one 22 days after the date the motion is served. E.D. Cal. L.R. to Local Rule 230(l). Failure “to file an 23 opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to 24 the granting of the motion and may result in the imposition of sanctions.” Id. 25 To manage its docket effectively, the court imposes deadlines on litigants and requires 26 litigants to meet those deadlines. The court may dismiss a case for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute 27 or failure to comply with its orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Hells Canyon Pres. 28 Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1 | 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court has a duty to 2 | administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See Pagtalunan v. 3 | Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 4 Plaintiff will be given a chance to explain why the court should not dismiss the case for 5 || his failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the court’s local rules. Accordingly, plaintiff is 6 | ordered to show cause within thirty days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to 7 | prosecute and failure to comply with the local rules. Should plaintiff wish to continue with this 8 | lawsuit, plaintiff shall, within thirty days of the date of this order, also file an opposition or 9 | statement of opposition to defendants’ motion. 10 Wl IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 ( 4 ie — Dated: _ November 13, 2020 Q_———— 13 JEREMY D. PETERSON 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28