(PC) Hodge v. Taylor

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JASON ROBERT HODGE, Case No. 2:19-cv-01956-DAD-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 v. RESPONSE DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS TAYLOR, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff has been provided with numerous extensions of time to file a response to defendants’ motion for summary judgment, yet he has failed to do so. See ECF Nos. 120, 122, 123, & 126. Out of an abundance of caution and in light of plaintiff’s pro se status, plaintiff will be afforded a final opportunity to file an opposition or statement of defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which was filed six months ago. See ECF No. 114. Should plaintiff fail to comply with this order, I expect to recommend that this action be dismissed. 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 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. g IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ May 9, 2024 Q————.

10 JEREMY D. PETERSON i UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE