Washington v. Superior Court Jury Services

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 BRETZ WASHINGTON, Case No. 24-cv-01344-TSH 6 Plaintiff, 7 y. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 8 SUPERIOR COURT JURY SERVICES, et 9 al., Defendants.

11 Pending before the Court is Defendant Superior Court of California’s motion to dismiss. qe 12 ECF No. 17. Plaintiff Bretz Washington failed to file an opposition in compliance with Civil || Local Rule 7. The Court possesses the inherent power to dismiss an action sua sponte “to achieve || the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-33 15 || (1962). Accordingly, the Court hereby VACATES the August 22, 2024 noticed hearing date and || ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute 5 || and failure to comply with court deadlines. Plaintiff shall file a declaration by August 7, 2024 and 18 simultaneously file either an opposition in compliance with Civil Local Rule 7-3(a) or a statement 19 of nonopposition in compliance with Local Rule 7-3(b). If Plaintiff files an opposition, Defendant a9 || may file any reply within seven days of its entry in ECF.

Notice is hereby provided that failure to file a written response will be deemed an admission that you do not intend to prosecute, and this case will likely be dismissed. Thus, it is 73 imperative the Court receive a written response by the deadline above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 Dated: July 26, 2024 27 THOMAS S. HIXSON 28 United States Magistrate Judge