1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMURL A. SCOTT, Case No. 2:24-cv-1297-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 PADILLA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On September 11, 2025, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 21. 18 On October 8, 2025, the court granted plaintiff an additional thirty days to file an opposition. 19 ECF No. 25. To date, plaintiff has not filed an opposition. 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 defendant’s 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 defendant’s motion. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ December 4, 2025 qe 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