(PC) Nitkin v. Radu

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JOSHUA THOMAS NITKIN, Case No. 2:23-cv-1837-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE D. RADU, 15 Defendant.

17 On January 8, 2025, defendant filed a motion to compel. ECF No. 34. 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 defendant’s motion. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure to comply with a court order and will result | in dismissal of this action. 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 defendant’s motion.

7 | ITIS SO ORDERED.

9 Dated: _ March 4, 2025 Q————.

JEREMY D. PETERSON 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE