(SS) Lloyd v. Commissioner of Social Security

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BRENDA LLOYD, Case No. 2:20-cv-01727-JDP (SS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 13 v. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL RESPONSE DUE WITHIN 14 DAYS SECURITY, Defendant.

18 On June 3, 2021, the court issued a scheduling order requiring plaintiff to file a motion for summary judgment within 45 days of the service of the administrative record. ECF No. 16.

20 Plaintiff has not filed a motion. Accordingly, the court will order plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

22 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.

3 Accordingly: 4 1. Plaintiff is ordered to show cause within 14 days why this case should not be 5 dismissed for failure to prosecute.

6 2. If plaintiff wishes to prosecute this case, a motion for summary judgment must also be 7 filed within 14 days.

9 IT IS SO ORDERED.

10 ( 1 Ow — Dated: _ March 11, 2022 11 JEREMY D. PETERSON 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE