1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 ORLANDO SANCHEZ DE TAGLE, Case No. 25-cv-01886-VKD

9 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 10 v. CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 11 DERICK NGUYEN,

Defendant. 12

13 14 On March 5, 2025, the Court issued an order screening Mr. Sanchez de Tagle’s complaint, 15 staying service of process, and giving Mr. Sanchez de Tagle leave to file an amended complaint by 16 March 28, 2025. Dkt. No. 5. The order stated that “[i]f Mr. Sanchez de Tagle fails to file an 17 amended complaint in time,” then his complaint would be subject to dismissal. Id. at 1, 4-5. The 18 March 28, 2025 deadline has passed, and the docket indicates that Mr. Sanchez de Tagle has not 19 filed an amended complaint. 20 The Court possesses the inherent power to dismiss an action sua sponte “to achieve the 21 orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,

, 629-33 22 (1962). By April 25, 2025, Mr. Sanchez de Tagle shall file a written response to this order 23 explaining why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute his case. If Mr. 24 Sanchez de Tagle does not respond to this order by the April 25, 2025 deadline, the Court will 25 issue an order reassigning this action to a district judge with a recommendation that the complaint 26 /// 27 /// 1 be dismissed for failure to prosecute and/or to comply with court orders. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 || Dated: April 11, 2025 4 5 Unragiiia. NMarehe: Virginia K. DeMarchi 6 United States Magistrate Judge 4 8 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

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