Jannings v. PG&E Corporation

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 JANNINGS, Case No. 23-cv-01735-HSG 8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 Vv. Re: Dkt. No. 13 10 PG&E CORPORATION, 11 Defendant.

12 On August 24, 2023, pro se Appellant Spiro Jannings filed a Motion for Expansion of |} Time. Dkt. No. 11. The Court granted the motion and Appellant’s principal brief was due || September 5, 2023. Dkt. No. 13. Plaintiff failed to file his brief.

3 15 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that where a “plaintiff fails to prosecute or || to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any 17 || claim against it.” But a defendant need not file a motion in order for a district court to dismiss a |} case under Rule 41(b), given the Supreme Court’s statement that “[t]he authority of a court to || dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an ‘inherent power,’ || governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own 21 affairs[.]” See Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962).

22 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered TO SHOW CAUSE why the case should not be dismissed || for failure to prosecute, given Plaintiffs failure to file his opening brief by the extended || September 5, 2023, deadline. Plaintiff shall file a statement of two pages or less by September 18, || 2023.

26 IT IS SO ORDERED.

27 || Dated: 9/11/2023 Abepwel 5 Mb |p HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 28 United States District Judge