1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 AUSTIN DE TAGLE, Case No. 24-cv-04432-VKD

9 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 10 v. CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 11 SANTA CLARA COUNTY OFFICE OF PRETRIAL SERVICES, 12 Defendant.

13 14 On July 30, 2024, the Court issued an order screening Mr. de Tagle’s complaint, staying 15 service of process, and giving Mr. de Tagle leave to file an amended complaint by August 19, 16 2024. Dkt. No. 4. The order stated that “[i]f Mr. de Tagle fails to file an amended complaint in 17 time,” then his complaint would be subject to dismissal. Id. at 1, 5. The Court subsequently 18 granted Mr. de Tagle’s request for an extension to August 30, 2024 to file his amended complaint. 19 Dkt. No. 6. 20 The August 30, 2024 deadline has passed, and the docket indicates that Mr. de Tagle has 21 not filed an amended complaint. 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). By September 23, 2024, Mr. de Tagle shall file a written response to this order 25 explaining why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute his case. If Mr. de 26 Tagle does not respond to this order by the September 23, 2024 deadline, the Court will issue an 27 order reassigning this action to a district judge with a recommendation that the complaint be 1 dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: September 9, 2024 4 5 Virginia K. DeMarchi 6 United States Magistrate Judge 4 8 9 10 11 12

13

15 16

= 17

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