(PS) Lewis v. State of CA

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MELVIN RAY LEWIS, Case No. 2:21-cv-01575-DAD-JDP (PS) 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 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., RESPONSE DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN 15 Defendants. DAYS 17 On May 19, 2022, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint, notified him that it failed to state a claim, and gave plaintiff thirty days to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 3. To date, plaintiff has not done so.

20 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.

23 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.

27 The court will give plaintiff an opportunity to explain why this case should not be dismissed for failure to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff’s 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 fourteen 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 fourteen days, an amended | complaint.

7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ December 2, 2022 Q_—_—.

9 JEREMY D. PETERSON 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE