1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL E. JACQUES, Case No. 2:25-cv-0830-JDP 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 D. BAKER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On September 15, 2025, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, to 18 revoke plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status. ECF No. 19. To date, plaintiff has not filed a 19 response. 20 To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet certain deadlines. 21 The court may impose sanctions, including dismissing a case, for failure to comply with its orders 22 or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. 23 Forest Serv.,

(9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 24 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court has a duty to administer 25 justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291

(9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 27 I will give plaintiff a chance to explain why the court should not dismiss the case for his 28 failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion. Plaintiff’s 1 | failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure to comply with a court order and will result 2 | in arecommendation that this action be dismissed. Accordingly, plaintiff is ordered to show 3 | cause within twenty-one days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and 4 | failure to comply with local rules. Should plaintiff wish to continue with this lawsuit, he shall 5 | file, within twenty-one days, an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ October 30, 2025 Q_—_—. 9 JEREMY D. PETERSON 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28