The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 SKYLER R. BROWN, Case No. 2:23-cv-1827-JDP (P)
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
14 S. SERGENT,
15 Defendant.
16
17 On January 30, 2025, defendant filed a motion to compel and for sanctions. ECF No. 28.
18 To date, plaintiff has not filed a response.
19 To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet certain deadlines.
20 The court may impose sanctions, including dismissing a case, for failure to comply with its orders
21 or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S.
22 Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir.
23 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court has a duty to administer
24 justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291
25 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.
26 I will give plaintiff a chance to explain why the court should not dismiss the case for his
27 failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion. Plaintiff’s
28 failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure to comply with a court order and will result
1 | in arecommendation that this action be dismissed. Accordingly, plaintiff is ordered to show
2 | cause within twenty-one days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and
3 | failure to comply with court orders. Should plaintiff wish to continue with this lawsuit, he shall
4 | file, within twenty-one days, an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion.
5
6
7 | ITIS SO ORDERED.
8 ( _
Dated: _ March 4, 2025 q-——
? au D. PETERSON
10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28