(PC) Johnson v. Solano County Sheriff ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES L. JOHNSON, JR., Case No. 2:22-cv-02220-KJM-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED 13 v. FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL RULES 14 SOLANO COUNTY SHERIFF, et al., ECF No. 3 15 Defendants. 16 17 On December 15, 2022, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s first amended 18 complaint. ECF No. 3. To date, plaintiff has not filed a response to the motion. 19 Under the court’s local rules, a responding party is required to file an opposition or 20 statement of non-opposition to a motion no later than fourteen days after the date it was filed. 21 E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet 22 certain deadlines. The court may impose sanctions, including dismissing a case, for failure to 23 comply with its orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Hells Canyon 24 Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 25 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court has a 26 duty to administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See 27 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 28 1 The court will give plaintiff the opportunity to explain why sanctions should not be 2 | imposed for failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion. 3 | Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure to comply with a court order and 4 | will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 5 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 6 1. The February 2, 2023 hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss is continued to March 7 | 9, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 9. 8 2. By no later than February 16, 2023, plaintiff shall file an opposition or statement of 9 | non-opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss. See ECF No. 3. 10 3. Plaintiff shall show cause, by no later than February 16, 2023, why sanctions should 11 | not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to 12 | defendant’s motion. 13 4. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiff's opposition, if any, no later than February 23, 14 | 2023. 15 5. Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be 16 | dismissed for lack of prosecution, failure to comply with court orders, and failure to comply with 17 | local rules. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 ( q oy — Dated: _ January 29, 2023 q——— 21 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28