(PS) Mehl v. Green

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GAVIN MEHL, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01861-TLN-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED 13 v. FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL RULES WARREN GREEN, et al., ECF No. 44 15 Defendants.

17 On November 9, 2022, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ second amended complaint. ECF No. 4. To date, plaintiffs have not filed a response to the motion.

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 plaintiffs the opportunity to explain why sanctions should not be | imposed for failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ 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. By no later than December 22, 2022, plaintiffs shall file an opposition or statement of || non-opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss. See ECF No. 44.

8 2. Plaintiffs shall show cause, by no later than December 12, 2022, why sanctions should | not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to | defendants’ motion.

11 3. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiffs’ opposition, if any, no later than January 12, | 2023.

13 4. 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.

7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

18 ( q oy — Dated: _ December 2, 2022 19 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE