1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DIMITRY BORIGA, Case No. 24-cv-03500-PCP 8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 v. 10 COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendant. 12

After his initial complaint was dismissed, plaintiff Dimitry Boriga was ordered to file any 14 || amended complaint by no later than September 18, 2024. Dkt. No. 13. Boriga did not file an 3 15 || amended complaint by that date. a 16 Pursuant to Rule 41(b), a district court may sua sponte dismiss an action for failure to 3 17 prosecute or comply with a court order. See Link vy. Wabash R.R.,

(1962); 18 McKeever vy. Block,

(9th Cir. 1991). But such a dismissal should only be 19 || ordered when the failure to comply is unreasonable. See

A district court should afford the 20 || litigant prior notice of its intention to dismiss. See Malone v. United States Postal Serv.,

128, 133 (9th Cir. 1987). Boriga is therefore ordered to show cause why this action should not be 22 || dismissed for failure to prosecute. Boriga’s response or amended complaint must be filed within 23 || 21 days of this Order. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 || Dated: September 25, 2024 26 Zs 27 L Coy P. Casey Pitts 28 United States District Judge