Opinion

(PC) Brown v. Earls

Court
District Court, E.D. California
Filed
Mar 19, 2024
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 18.5%

The opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 MARK ANTHONY BROWN, Case No. 2:22-cv-00359-JDP (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

13 v. RESPONSE DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE

DAYS

14 D. EARLS Jr., et al.,

15 Defendants.

16

17 On October 10, 2023, defendants filed a motion to compel. ECF No. 29. After plaintiff

18 failed to file a response, on February 8, 2024, I directed plaintiff to file an opposition or statement

19 of non-opposition to defendants’ motion within twenty-one days. ECF No. 37. To date, plaintiff

20 has not filed a response.

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 opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion. Plaintiff's

2 | failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure to comply with a court order and will result

3 | in arecommendation that this action be dismissed. Accordingly, plaintiff is ordered to show

4 | cause within twenty-one days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and

5 | failure to comply with court orders. Should plaintiff wish to continue with this lawsuit, he shall

6 | file, within twenty-one days, an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion.

7

g IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ March 19, 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

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.