(PC) McCloud v. Solano County Sheriff Dept.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RICKY JAY MCCLOUD, Case No. 2:24-cv-0687-DAD-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE SOLANO COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants.

On May 29, 2025, defendant filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 18. 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 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 arecommendation that this action be dismissed. 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, he shall | file, within twenty-one days, an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion.

7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ July 15, 2025 q-—— 9 JEREMY D. PETERSON 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE