UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL

Case No. EDCV 24-01832-SRM (PVCx) Date May 8, 2025 _Samuel A. Bumette v_ Riverside County DCSS etal

Present: The Honorable SERENA R. MURILLO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Melissa H. Kunig Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: None Present None Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER CONTINUING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION On April 23, 2025, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause re Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution [32]. On May 5, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Stipulations to Extend Time to Respond and Motion for Default Against All Defendants [33]. In light of the Plaintiff's response and the reasons contained therein, the Court hereby CONTINUES the deadline for Plaintiff to respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause to July 3, 2025. No oral argument of this matter will be heard unless ordered by the Court. The Order will stand submitted upon the filing of a responsive pleading or motion on or before the date upon which a response by plaintiffs is due. Failure to file a timely and appropriate response to this Order may result in dismissal without further notice or order from the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); L. R. 41-6; Link v. Wabash R.R.,

(1962) (“The authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiff's action with prejudice because of his failure to prosecute cannot seriously be doubted.”); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv.,

(9th Cir. 2005) (“[C]ourts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at least under certain circumstances.”); Ash v. Cvetkov,

(9th Cir. 1984) (“It is within the inherent power of the court to sua sponte dismiss a case for lack of prosecution.”). Any further requests for a continuance in this matter are strongly disfavored.

Initials of Deputy Clerk mku