(PS) Lax v. Abode Services

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CRYSTAL LAX, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00769-DJC-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 v. RESPONSE DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS ADOBE SERVICES, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 On March 11, 2024, I screened plaintiffs’ complaint and notified them that it failed to state a claim. ECF No. 7. I granted them thirty days to file an amended complaint and notified them that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. To date, plaintiffs have not filed an amended complaint.

21 To manage its docket effectively, the court imposes deadlines on litigants and requires litigants to meet those deadlines. 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 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.

28 The court will give plaintiffs an opportunity to explain why this case should not be | dismissed for failure to file an amended complaint. Plaintiffs’ failure to respond to this order will | constitute a failure to comply with a court order and will result in a recommendation that this | action be dismissed. Accordingly, plaintiffs are ordered to show cause within fourteen days why | this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders.

5 | Should plaintiffs wish to continue with this lawsuit, they shall file, within fourteen days, an | amended complaint. g IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ April 30, 2024 q_———.

10 JEREMY D. PETERSON i UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE