1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 CARL A. WESCOTT, Case No. 23-cv-06254-VKD

9 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE 10 v. DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND TO COMPLY 11 APPLE INC, WITH COURT ORDER 12 Defendant.

13 14 On December 4, 2023, Carl A. Wescott, who is representing himself, filed a complaint, 15 along with an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt. Nos. 1, 2. On 16 December 6, 2023, the Court granted Mr. Wescott’s IFP application, but found that his complaint 17 failed to sufficiently identify a basis for the Court’s jurisdiction, and also failed to state a claim for 18 relief. Dkt. No. 4. Accordingly, the Court stayed service of process and gave Mr. Wescott until 19 January 5, 2024 to file an amended complaint. Id. The Court’s December 6, 2023 order stated 20 that “[i]f Mr. Wescott cannot cure the identified deficiencies, the Court will recommend 21 termination and dismissal of the complaint in whole or in part.” Id. at 3-4. 22 The docket indicates that Mr. Wescott has not filed an amended complaint, and the January 23 5, 2024 deadline for doing so has passed. 24 The Court possesses the inherent power to dismiss an action sua sponte “to achieve the 25 orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,

, 629-33 26 (1962). By January 22, 2024, Mr. Wescott shall file a written response to this order explaining 27 why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute his case and to comply with 1 Court will reassign this action to a district judge, with the recommendation that the action be 2 || dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and to comply with court orders. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: January 8, 2024 5

7 Virginia K. DeMarchi United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

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