1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 SCOTT JOHNSON, Case No. 5:20-cv-07591-EJD

9 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 10 v. DISMISSED

11 WILLIAM MARK PIERCY, Defendant. 12

13 14 Plaintiff Scott Johnson filed the present action on October 29, 2020. Dkt. No. 1. On May 15 27, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s administrative motion for relief seeking an order requiring 16 Defendant William Piercy to provide dates of availability to conduct the settlement meeting 17 required under General Order 56. Dkt. No. 16. The Court ordered the parties to conduct a 18 settlement meeting by June 30, 2021 and Plaintiff to file a notice of need for mediation no later 19 than 7 days after the parties’ settlement meeting. Plaintiff did not file a notice of need for 20 mediation by July 7, 2021, the latest possible date he could have done so. Neither party has taken 21 any action in this case since the Court’s May 27 order. 22 The Court possesses the inherent power to dismiss an action sua sponte “to achieve the 23 orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,

, 629–33 24 (1962). Plaintiff is directed to file a written response to this order by August 2, 2021 and to 25 appear before the Court on August 12, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. and show cause why this action should 26 not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 27 Procedure 41(b). If Plaintiff fails to file a written response by the above deadline, the Court will 1 dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: July 16, 2021 4 5 EDWARD J. DAVILA 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12

13

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 || Case No.: 5:20-cv-07591-EJD OSC WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED