(HC) Ortegon-Jiminez v. Warden ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GABRIEL ALFREDO ORTEGON- Case No. 2:23-cv-001270-JDP (HC) JIMENEZ, 12 Petitioner, 13 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. 14 WARDEN, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 On October 19, 2023, respondents filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 10. To date, 19 petitioner has not filed an opposition or statement of non-opposition. 20 To manage its docket effectively, the court imposes deadlines and requires litigants to 21 meet those deadlines. The court may dismiss a case for petitioner’s failure to prosecute or failure 22 to comply with its orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41; Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. 23 U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he consensus among our sister circuits, 24 with which we agree, is that courts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at least under 25 certain circumstances.”). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but the court has a duty to 26 administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See Pagtalunan v. 27 Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 28 Petitioner will be given an opportunity to explain why the court should not dismiss his 1 | case for failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to respondents’ motion to 2 | dismiss. Petitioner’s failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure to comply with a 3 | court order and will result in dismissal of this case. Accordingly, petitioner must show cause 4 | within twenty-one days of the date of entry of this order why the court should not dismiss his case 5 | for failure to prosecute. Should petitioner wish to continue with this lawsuit, he shall also file, 6 | within twenty-one days, an opposition or statement of non-opposition. 7 g IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ November 27, 2023 Q_———— 10 JEREMY D. PETERSON i UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28