(PC) Stratford v. Brazelton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ERIC STRATFORD, Case No. 1:17-cv-00766-JDP 10 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS 11 v. CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE PAUL D. BRAZELTON, et al., TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER 13 Defendants.

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 15 Plaintiff Eric Stratford is a former state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint was screened on October 15, 2019, and plaintiff was ordered to respond within thirty days. ECF No. 20. Plaintiff, however, has filed neither a response to the screening order nor a first amended complaint.

19 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.

22 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.

27 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.

6 T IS SO ORDERED. ’ : CN prssenn —_ ated: _ March 19, 2020 8 UNI STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE | No. 205.