(PC) John v. Hughes ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH JOHN, Case No. 2:20-cv-00984-JAM-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 Z. HUGHES, ECF No. 32 15 Defendant. RESPONSE DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE 16 DAYS 17 18 On March 3, 2022, defendant filed a motion to modify the scheduling order, to compel 19 plaintiff to provide responses to discovery requests, and to deem admitted defendant’s request for 20 admissions. ECF No. 32. To date, plaintiff has not filed an opposition or statement of non- 21 opposition to the motion. 22 In cases where a party is incarcerated and proceeding without counsel, a responding party 23 is required to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition not more twenty-one days after the 24 date the motion is served. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(l). Failure “to file an opposition or to file a 25 statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the 26 motion and may result in the imposition of sanctions.” Id. 27 To manage its docket effectively, the court imposes deadlines on litigants and requires 28 litigants to meet those deadlines. The court may dismiss a case for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute 1 | or failure to comply with its orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Hells Canyon Pres. 2 | Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 3 | 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court has a duty to 4 | administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See Pagtalunan v. 5 | Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 6 Plaintiff will be given a chance to explain why the court should not dismiss the case for 7 | his failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the court’s local rules. Accordingly, plaintiff is 8 | ordered to show cause within twenty-one days why this case should not be dismissed for failure 9 | to prosecute and failure to comply with the local rules. Should plaintiff wish to continue with this 10 | lawsuit, plaintiff shall, within twenty-one days, file an opposition or statement of non-opposition 11 || to defendant’s motion.! Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that 12 | this action be dismissed. 13 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 ( 1 ow — Dated: _ June 14, 2022 16 JEREMY D. PETERSON 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ' On June 2, 2022, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 33. Plaintiff is reminded that he is required to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to that 28 | motion by no later than June 23, 2022. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(1).