(PS) Horton v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JASON HORTON, Case No. 2:22-cv-01048-DAD-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED 13 v. FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL RULES CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., ECF No. 3 15 Defendant.

17 On June 24, 2022, defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. ECF No. 3.

18 To date, plaintiff has not filed a response.

19 Under the court’s local rules, a responding party is required to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to a motion no later than fourteen days after the date it was filed.

21 E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet certain deadlines. The court may impose sanctions, including dismissing a case, for failure to comply with its orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 25 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 The court will give plaintiff the opportunity to explain why sanctions should not be | imposed for failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion.

3 | 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.

5 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 6 1. The September 1, 2022 hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss is continued to | October 5, 2022, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 9.

8 2. By no later than September 14, 2022, plaintiff shall file an opposition or statement of | non-opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss. See ECF No. 3.

10 3. Plaintiff shall show cause, by no later than September 14, 2022, why sanctions should | not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to | defendant’s motion.

13 4. Defendant may file a reply to plaintiffs opposition, if any, no later than September 28, | 2022.

15 5. Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be | dismissed for lack of prosecution, failure to comply with court orders, and failure to comply with | local rules.

19 IT IS SO ORDERED.

20 ( q oy — Dated: _ August 25, 2022 21 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE