(PC) Casto v. Newsom ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HERSHEL W. CASTO, Case No. 2:19-cv-02209-KJM-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 NEWSOM, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On November 7, 2022, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 53. 18 The court has twice granted plaintiff additional time to file a response to that motion, with the 19 latest deadline being July 3, 2023. See ECF Nos. 56 & 62. To date, plaintiff has not filed a 20 response. 21 In cases in which a party is incarcerated and proceeding without counsel, a responding 22 party is required to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition not more twenty-one days 23 after the date the motion is served. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(l). Failure “to file an opposition or to file 24 a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the 25 motion and may result in the imposition of sanctions.” Id. 26 To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet certain deadlines. 27 The court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of a case, for failure to comply with court 28 orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Hells Canyon Pres. Council 1 | v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 2 | (9th Cir. 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court has a duty to 3 | administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See Pagtalunan □□□ 4 | Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 5 Plaintiff will be given a chance to explain why the court should not dismiss the case for 6 | his failure to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion. 7 | Plaintiffs failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure to comply with a court order and 8 | will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Plaintiff is admonished that no 9 | further extensions of time will be granted. Failure to file a response by August 3, 2023 will result 10 | in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. 11 Accordingly, plaintiff is ordered to show cause by August 3, 2023 why this case should 12 | not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with the court’s local rules. 13 | Should plaintiff wish to continue with this lawsuit, he shall, by August 3, 2023, file an opposition 14 | or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 ( 1 Sy — Dated: _ July 12, 2023 Q——— 18 JEREMY D. PETERSON 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28