(PC) Cox v. Daram ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERNEST LEE COX, JR., Case No. 2:21-cv-1778-DJC-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 VASUKI DARAM, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On July 12, 2024, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed 18 plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. ECF No. 46. The court gave plaintiff twenty-one days 19 to file an amended complaint and notified him that should he fail to file an amended complaint, 20 this action would be dismissed. To date, plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. 21 To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet certain deadlines. 22 The court may impose sanctions, including dismissing a case, for failure to comply with its orders 23 or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. 24 Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 25 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court has a duty to administer 26 justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 27 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 28 I will give plaintiff a chance to explain why the court should not dismiss the case for his 1 | failure to file an amended complaint. Plaintiffs failure to respond to this order will constitute a 2 | failure to comply with a court order and will result in a recommendation that this action be 3 | dismissed. Accordingly, plaintiff is ordered to show cause within twenty-one days why this case 4 | should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. Should 5 | plaintiff wish to continue with this lawsuit, he shall file, within twenty-one days, an amended 6 | complaint. 7 g IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ November 20, 2024 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