(PC) Ramsom v. Sacramento Police Dept.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DONSHEA LAVON RANSOM, Case No. 2:23-cv-0638-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants.

On April 15, 2025, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 27. To date, plaintiff has not filed a response.

To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet certain deadlines.

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.

I will give plaintiff a chance to explain why the court should not dismiss the case her failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ 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 | local rules. Should plaintiff wish to continue with this lawsuit, she shall file, within twenty-one || days, an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion.

7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ May 28, 2025 Q————.

9 JEREMY D. PETERSON 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE