1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 LEONNA HUTCHINSON, Case No. 24-cv-04123-TSH 6 Plaintiff, 7 y. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 8 ELON R MUSK, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Plaintiff Leonna Hutchinson initiated this lawsuit by filing a complaint (ECF No. 1) and 12 || application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2). On July 10 the Court granted the 13 application but found Plaintiffs complaint deficient under

(e). ECF No. 4. The 14 || Court directed Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint by August 9, 2024, warning that if 3 15 || Plaintiff failed to cure the deficiencies, the case would be reassigned to a district judge with a a 16 || recommendation for dismissal. Plaintiff has failed to respond.

17 The Court possesses the inherent power to dismiss an action sua sponte “to achieve the 18 || orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,

, 629-33 19 || (1962). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff Leonna Hutchinson to show cause why this 20. || case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court deadlines. 21 || Plaintiff shall file a declaration by August 29, 2024. Notice is hereby provided that failure to file a 97 || Written response will be deemed an admission that you do not intend to prosecute, and this case 23 will likely be dismissed. Thus, it is imperative the Court receive a written response by the deadline above. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: August 16, 2024 THOMAS S. HIXSON / 28 United States Magistrate Judge