# (PC) Brown v. Wong

> District Court, E.D. California · June 24, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10045487

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** June 24, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10045487

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 CHARLES BROWN, Case No. 2:20-cv-01673-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 S.H. WONG,
ECF No. 70
15 Defendant.
RESPONSE DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE
16 DAYS
17
18 On May 23, 2022, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 70. To
19 date, plaintiff has not filed a response to defendant’s motion.
20 In cases where a party is incarcerated and proceeding without counsel, a responding party
21 is required to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition not more twenty-one days after the
22 date the motion is served. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(l). Failure “to file an opposition or to file a
23 statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the
24 motion and may result in the imposition of sanctions.” Id.
25 To manage its docket effectively, the court imposes deadlines on litigants and requires
26 litigants to meet those deadlines. The court may dismiss a case for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute
27 or failure to comply with its orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Hells Canyon Pres.
28 Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439,
1 | 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court has a duty to
2 | administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See Pagtalunan v.
3 | Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.
4 Plaintiff will be given a chance to explain why the court should not dismiss the case for
5 | his failure to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion.
6 | Plaintiff's failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure to comply with a court order and
7 | will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Accordingly, plaintiff is ordered to
8 | show cause within twenty-one days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute
9 | and for failure to comply with the court’s local rules. Should plaintiff wish to continue with this
10 lawsuit, he shall, within twenty-one days, file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to
11 | defendant’s motion.
12
3 IT IS SO ORDERED.
14 ( ie —
Dated: _ June 23, 2022
15 JEREMY D. PETERSON
16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10045487. Public record. Not legal advice.