(HC) Lopez Galindo v. Warden

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PEDRO LOPEZ GALINDO, Case No. 2:23-cv-00572-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER WARDEN, 15 Respondent.

17 On June 26, 2023, respondent filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 9. To date, petitioner has not filed an opposition or statement of non-opposition.

19 To manage its docket effectively, the court imposes deadlines and requires litigants to meet those deadlines. The court may dismiss a case for petitioner’s failure to prosecute or failure to comply with its orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41; Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he consensus among our sister circuits, with which we agree, is that courts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at least under certain circumstances.”). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but the 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 Petitioner will be given an opportunity to explain why the court should not dismiss his case for failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to respondent’s motion to | dismiss. Petitioner’s failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure to comply with a | court order and will result in dismissal of this case. Accordingly, petitioner must show cause | within twenty-one days of the date of entry of this order why the court should not dismiss his case | for failure to prosecute. Should petitioner wish to continue with this lawsuit, he shall also file, | within twenty-one days, an opposition or statement of non-opposition.

7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ August 7, 2023 q-—— 9 JEREMY D. PETERSON 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE