1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 CECILIA CAREY, Case No. 24-cv-07354-TSH 7 Plaintiff, y. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 MAURICIO TORRES, 10 Defendant. 11 12 On December 20, 2024, the Court screened Plaintiff Cecilia Carey’s First Amended 13 Complaint, finding it deficient under

(e). ECF No. 8. The Court directed 14 || Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint by January 17, 2025, warning that if she failed to do 3 15 so, this case would likely be reassigned to a district judge with a recommendation for dismissal. a 16 || Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond.

17 The Court possesses the inherent power to dismiss an action sua sponte “to achieve the 18 || orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,

, 629-33 19 || (1962). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff Cecilia Carey to show cause why this case 20 || should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court deadlines. Plaintiff shall file a declaration by February 6, 2025. Notice is hereby provided that failure to file 97 || written response will be deemed an admission that you do not intend to prosecute, and this case 23 will likely be dismissed. Thus, it is imperative the Court receive a written response by the deadline above. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: January 23, 2025 27 LAA. lj □ □ THOMAS S. HIXSON 28 United States Magistrate Judge