(PC) Allen v. Haris

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TELLY ALLEN, Case No. 2:20-cv-02396-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 13 v. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM HARIS, RESPONSE DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE 15 Defendant. DAYS 18 On February 3, 2021, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint and notified plaintiff that the complaint failed to state a claim. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff was granted sixty days to file an amended complaint. Id. To date, plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint.

21 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 its orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Hells Canyon Pres.

24 Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988). 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.

1 Plaintiff will be given a chance to explain why the court should not dismiss the case for | his failure to file an amended complaint. Plaintiffs failure to respond to this order will constitute | a failure to comply with a court order and will result in a recommendation that this action be | dismissed. Accordingly, plaintiff is ordered to show cause within twenty-one days why this case | should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to state a claim. Should plaintiff wish | to continue with this lawsuit, he shall file, within twenty-one days, a first amended complaint. g IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ April 23, 2021 10 JEREMY D. PETERSON i UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE