Williams v. County of San Mateo

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 8 RICKEY WILLIAMS, Case No. 20-cv-03801-VKD 9 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 10 v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 11 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, et al., Defendants.

v 14 Plaintiff Rickey Williams filed this action on June 9, 2020. Dkt. No. 1. The Court granted O || Mr. Williams’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and screened his complaint pursuant to 16 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Dkt. No. 6. The Court ordered Mr. Williams to file an amended complaint 17 by June 29, 2020, but he has not done so. Nor has Mr. Williams filed his consent or declination to || magistrate judge jurisdiction as directed.

19 The Court possesses the inherent power to dismiss an action sua sponte “to achieve the || orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-33 21 (1962).

22 Accordingly, Mr. Williams is directed to file a written response to this order by July 7, || 2020 to show cause why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to || prosecute.

25 IT IS SO ORDERED.

26 Dated: July 2, 2020 . 28 □ VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI 28 United States Magistrate Judge