(PC) Hawkins v. Gomez

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RICKY HAWKINS, Case No. 2:21-cv-02302-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 v. RESPONSE DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS O. GOMEZ, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 On October 24, 2023, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 59. To date, plaintiff has not filed a response.

19 To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet certain deadlines.

20 The court may impose sanctions, including dismissing a case, for failure to comply with its orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court has a duty to administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 25 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.

26 I will give plaintiff a chance to explain why the court should not dismiss the case for his failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure to comply with a court order and will result | in arecommendation that this action be dismissed. Accordingly, plaintiff is ordered to show | cause within twenty-one days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and | failure to comply with court orders. Should plaintiff wish to continue with this lawsuit, he shall | file, within twenty-one days, an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion.

6 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ January 24, 2024 Q_———— 8 JEREMY D. PETERSON 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE