1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 JUDE DAVID SMITH, Case No. 24-cv-02953-TSH

9 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 10 v.

11 CARRIE VENCIL, et al., 12 Defendants.

13 14 Plaintiff Jude David Smith initiated this lawsuit on May 15, 2024 by filing a complaint 15 (ECF No. 1) and application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2). On June 7, 2024, the 16 Court granted the in forma pauperis application but found the complaint deficient under 28 U.S.C. 17 § 1915(e). ECF No. 5. The Court directed Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint curing the 18 deficiencies identified in the screening order by July 8, 2024. The Court warned that “[i]f Plaintiff 19 fails to cure these deficiencies, the case will be reassigned to a district judge with a 20 recommendation for dismissal.” Plaintiff has failed to respond and has made no appearance since 21 filing his complaint nearly two months 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 ORDERS Plaintiff Jude David Smith to show cause why this case 25 should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court deadlines. 26 Plaintiff shall file a declaration by July 29, 2024. Notice is hereby provided that failure to file a 27 written response will be deemed an admission that you do not intend to prosecute, and this case 1 will likely be dismissed. Thus, it is imperative the Court receive a written response by the 2 || deadline above. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 Dated: July 15, 2024 6 TAA. lj THOMAS S. HIXSON 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 a 12

13

15

16

17

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