Gabriel Simmons v. United States

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No. 2:25-cv-08524-SRM-MAR Date: January 22, 2026 Title: Present: The Honorable: MARGO A. ROCCONI, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE VALERIE VELASCO N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants: N/A N/A Proceedings: (In Chambers) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE On September 8, 2025, Petitioner Gabriel Simmons (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. ECF Docket No. 1 (“Petition”). On October 30, 2025, the Court ordered Petitioner to show cause regarding why this action should not be dismissed by December 16, 2025. Dkt. 5. Petitioner has not responded to the order.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) grants the Court authority to sua sponte dismiss actions for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Wolff v. California, 318 F.R.D. 627, 630 (C.D. Cal. 2016). A plaintiff must prosecute her case with “reasonable diligence” to avoid dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b). Anderson v. Air W., Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976).

Here, it appears that Plaintiff has failed to prosecute the case with reasonable diligence because he has failed to respond to the Court’s order for over two months.

Accordingly, the Court, on its own motion, orders Plaintiff to respond to the Court’s order, or to show cause in writing as to why he has not done so, on or before February 22, 2026. Plaintiff is expressly warned that failure to timely file a response to this Order will result in this action being dismissed without prejudice as to one or more defendant(s) for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Initials of : Preparer vv