United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 2020

(PC) Quarles v. California State Prison Corcoran

(PC) Quarles v. California State Prison Corcoran
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · Decided March 3, 2020
(PC) Quarles v. California State Prison Corcoran

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NIKKO JAVOR QUARLES, Case No. 1:19-cv-00109-AWI-JDP 10 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS 11 v. CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER CORCORAN, et al., Defendants. THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE Plaintiff Nikko Javor Quarles is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint was screened on July 17, 2019, and plaintiff was ordered to respond within thirty days. ECF No. 10. On August 15, 2019, plaintiff moved for a thirty-day extension, ECF No. 13, which we granted, ECF No. 14.

Plaintiff, however, has filed neither a response to the screening order nor a first amended complaint.

To manage our docket effectively, we impose deadlines and require litigants to meet those deadlines. When a plaintiff fails to comply with court-imposed deadlines, the court may dismiss the plaintiff’s case for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41; Hells Canyon Pres.

Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he consensus among our sister circuits, with which we agree, is that courts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at least under certain circumstances.”). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but the court has a duty to administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See | Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.

2 We will give plaintiff the opportunity to explain why the court should not dismiss his | case for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff's failure to respond to this order will constitute another | failure to comply with a court order and will result in dismissal of this case. Accordingly, | plaintiff must show cause within thirty days of the date of entry of this order why the court | should not dismiss his case for failure to prosecute.

T IS SO ORDERED. ° : CN prssenn —_ ated: _ March 2, 2020 10 UNI STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE | No. 204.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.