(PC) Rodriguez v. Ruiz ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JULIAN RODRIGUEZ, Case No. 2:20-cv-01525-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 MIGUEL RUIZ, et al., RESPONSE DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE 15 Defendants. DAYS 16 17 On January 19, 2022 and February 2, 2022, defendants filed a motion for summary 18 judgment, ECF No. 41, and a motion to dismiss, ECF No. 45, respectively. To date, plaintiff has 19 not filed a response to either.1 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 not more twenty-one days after the 22 date the motion is served. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(l). Failure “to file an opposition or to file a 23 statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the 24 motion and may result in the imposition of sanctions.” Id. 25 1 Plaintiff has filed eight pages of exhibits—however, there is no accompanying text 26 indicating the purpose of the exhibits. ECF No. 48. Plaintiff does not state whether these 27 exhibits are offered in response to defendants’ motions or for some other purpose entirely. Without any indication that these exhibits are in response to defendants’ motions, the court cannot 28 conclude that plaintiff has filed a response to either motion. 1 To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet certain deadlines. 2 | The court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of a case, for failure to comply with court 3 | orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Hells Canyon Pres. Council 4 | v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 5 | (9th Cir. 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court has a duty to 6 | administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See Pagtalunan v. 7 | Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 8 Plaintiff will be given a chance to explain why the court should not dismiss the case for 9 | his failure to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion. 10 | Plaintiffs failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure to comply with a court order and 11 } will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Accordingly, plaintiff is ordered to 12 | show cause within twenty-one days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute 13 | and for failure to comply with the court’s local rules. Should plaintiff wish to continue with this 14 | lawsuit, he shall, within twenty-one days, file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to 15 | defendants’ motion. 16 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 ( q oy — Dated: _ October 12, 2022 19 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28