1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CARL A. WESCOTT, Case No. 24-cv-01866-TSH

8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 v.

10 META PLATFORMS, INC., 11 Defendant.

12 13 Plaintiff Carl A. Wescott initiated this lawsuit on March 26, 2024 by filing a complaint 14 (ECF No. 1) and application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2). On April 2 the Court 15 granted Plaintiff’s application and directed the Clerk of Court or the U.S. Marshal for the Northern 16 District of California to serve Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc. ECF No. 4. On April 5 the Clerk 17 requested Plaintiff provide Defendant’s address for service, but he did not respond. ECF No. 6. 18 The Court also notes this matter is scheduled for a case management conference on June 27, and 19 any case management statement was due June 20 (see ECF No. 2), yet Plaintiff did not file a 20 statement. In fact, Plaintiff has made no appearance since filing his complaint nearly three months 21 ago. 22 The Court possesses the inherent power to dismiss an action sua sponte “to achieve the 23 orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,

, 629-33 24 (1962). Accordingly, the Court VACATES the June 27 case management conference and 25 ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute 26 and failure to comply with court deadlines. Plaintiff shall file a declaration by July 5, 2024. 27 Notice is hereby provided that failure to file a written response will be deemed an admission that 1 you do not intend to prosecute, and this case will likely be dismissed. Thus, it is imperative the 2 || Court receive a written response by the deadline above. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 Dated: June 21, 2024

THOMAS S. HIXSON 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12

13

15

16

17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28