Raheem Jones, et al. v. City of Sacramento Board of Supervisors, et al.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RAHEEM JONES, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-0864-DJC-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE CITY OF SACRAMENTO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, et al., Defendants.

18 On August 25, 2025, defendant City of Sacramento filed a motion to dismiss this case for failure to state a claim. ECF No. 26. To date, plaintiffs have not responded to defendant’s motion.

21 Under the court’s local rules, a responding party is required to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to a motion no later than fourteen days after the date it was filed.

23 E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). 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 27 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 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.

3 The court will give plaintiffs the opportunity to explain why sanctions should not be | imposed for failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion.

5 | Plaintiffs’ failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure to comply with a court order and | will result in dismissal of this action.

7 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 8 1. The October 2, 2025 hearing on defendant’s motion is continued to November 6, 2025, | at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 9.

10 2. By no later than October 16, 2025, plaintiffs shall file an opposition or statement of || non-opposition to defendant’s motion.

12 3. Plaintiffs shall show cause, by no later than October 16, 2025, why sanctions should | not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to | defendant’s motion.

15 4. Defendant may file a reply to plaintiffs’ opposition, if any, no later than October 30, | 2025.

18 IT IS SO ORDERED.

19 ( q Sty — Dated: _ October 1, 2025 Q———— 20 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE