Banks-Reed v. United States

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: April 30, 2024
• Docket: 3:23-cv-04200
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 YOLANDA BANKS-REED, et al., Case No. 23-cy-04200-TSH 6 Plaintiffs, 7 y. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 9 Defendant. 10 11 Pending before the Court is Defendant United States of America’s Motion to Dismiss. qe 12 ECF No. 41. Plaintiffs have failed to file an opposition in compliance with Civil Local Rule 7. 5 13 The Court possesses the inherent power to dismiss an action sua sponte “to achieve the S 14 || orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-33 3 15 || (1962). Accordingly, the Court hereby VACATES the July 11, 2024 noticed hearing date and 16 || ORDERS Plaintiffs to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute 5 || and failure to comply with court deadlines. Plaintiffs shall file a declaration by May 15, 2024 and 5 18 simultaneously file either an opposition in compliance with Civil Local Rule 7-3(a) or a statement 19 of nonopposition in compliance with Local Rule 7-3(b). If Plaintiffs file an opposition, Defendant 20) may file any reply by May 22, 2024. Notice is hereby provided that failure to file a written response will be deemed an 7 admission that you do not intend to prosecute, and this case will likely be dismissed. Thus, it is 73 imperative the Court receive a written response by the deadline above. IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 6 Dated: April 30, 2024

28 United States Magistrate Judge