(PC) Childers v. Fabritio

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ALLEN LEE CHILDERS, Case No. 1:18-cv-01241-NONE-JDP 10 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS 11 v. CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE ELAINE ROSA, TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER 13 Defendant.

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 15 Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 20, 2019, plaintiff was ordered to provide documents for service. ECF No. 15. However, no response to the court’s order was ever provided, and defendant has not been served.

19 To manage the docket effectively, the court imposes deadlines on litigants and requires 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.

27 The court will give plaintiff the opportunity to explain why this case should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order. Plaintiff’s failure wOAoOe 4:40 UV VEST IN INE VR MMM te POC a hee OY ove | 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.

5 T IS SO ORDERED. ° : CN prssenn —_ ated: _ June 12, 2020 7 UNI STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE No. 204.