Stewart v. VA Medical Center

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WILLIAM-BULLOCK STEWART, Case No. 22-cv-04683-AMO 8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. Re: Dkt. No. 23 10 VA MEDICAL CENTER, et al., Defendants.

13 On August 15, 2022, pro se Plaintiff William-Bullock Stewart filed a Complaint in this District Court against Defendant VA Medical Center and some 87 individuals it employs. Dkt. 1.

15 On May 22, 2023, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Dkt. 23. Under Civil Local Rule 7-3, Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ Motion was due by June 5, 2023. That deadline has passed, and Plaintiff still has not filed a response to Defendants’ Motion.

19 Rule 41 accords a district court discretion to dismiss a plaintiff’s action because of his failure to prosecute, to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or to comply with a court order. See, e.g., Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dep’t, 530 F.3d 1124, 1129 (9th Cir. 2008); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal of a pro se prisoner’s civil rights action where the plaintiff failed to comply with the court’s order to file an amended pleading); Oliva v. Sullivan, 948 F.2d 272, 273-74 (9th Cir. 1992) (noting that the district court may dismiss sua sponte for failure to meet a court deadline).

26 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE why Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss should not be granted. In particular, he must file a written response to Defendants’ 2023. If plaintiff no longer intends to prosecute this case, he should file a notice of voluntary || dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a). Failure to respond to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss as ordered may result in the motion being granted, and the action being dismissed with prejudice.

4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 || Dated: June 12, 2023 col Mod ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN 8 United States District Judge a 12

= 17 Z 18