(PS) Wheeler v. Majesky

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ZACKERY WHEELER, Case No. 2:20-cv-01705-TLN-JDP Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS

CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR v. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

MATTHEW MAJESKY, et al., RESPONSE DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS

Defendants.

On November 24, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 9. Plaintiff has not responded and the deadline to do so has now passed. Accordingly, the court will order plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The court will also grant plaintiff another opportunity to respond to the pending motion.

To manage its docket effectively, the court imposes deadlines on litigants and requires litigants to meet those deadlines. The court may dismiss a case for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district 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. The court will give plaintiff a chance to explain why the court should not dismiss the case for plaintiffs failure to prosecute. Plaintiffs failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure tocomply with a court order and will result in dismissal of this case.

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that:

1. Plaintiff is ordered to show cause within 30 days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

2. Plaintiffis ordered to file a response to defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 9, within 30 days of the date of entry of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. ( 1 Ow — Dated: _ January 12, 2021

JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE