(HC) Sanchez v. Warden ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARIANO PEREZ SANCHEZ, Case No. 2:23-cv-001067-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 WARDEN, 15 Respondent. 16 17 On October 10, 2023, respondent filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 6. To date, 18 petitioner has not filed an opposition or statement of non-opposition. 19 To manage its docket effectively, the court imposes deadlines and requires litigants to 20 meet those deadlines. The court may dismiss a case for petitioner’s failure to prosecute or failure 21 to comply with its orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41; Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. 22 U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he consensus among our sister circuits, 23 with which we agree, is that courts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at least under 24 certain circumstances.”). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but the court has a duty to 25 administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See Pagtalunan v. 26 Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 27 Petitioner will be given an opportunity to explain why the court should not dismiss his 28 case for failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to respondent’s motion to 1 | dismiss. Petitioner’s failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure to comply with a 2 | court order and will result in dismissal of this case. Accordingly, petitioner must show cause 3 | within twenty-one days of the date of entry of this order why the court should not dismiss his case 4 | for failure to prosecute. Should petitioner wish to continue with this lawsuit, he shall also file, 5 | within twenty-one days, an opposition or statement of non-opposition. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ November 27, 2023 q———_ 9 JEREMY D. PETERSON 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28