Carey v. Torres

Opinion

1 2 5 6 CECILIA CAREY, Case No. 24-cv-07354-TSH 7 Plaintiff, y. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 10 Defendant. 11 12 On December 20, 2024, the Court screened Plaintiff Cecilia Carey’s First Amended 13 Complaint, finding it deficient under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). ECF No. 8. The Court directed 14 || Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint by January 17, 2025, warning that if she failed to do 3 15 so, this case would likely be reassigned to a district judge with a recommendation for dismissal. a 16 || Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond.

17 The Court possesses the inherent power to dismiss an action sua sponte “to achieve the 18 || orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-33 19 || (1962). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff Cecilia Carey to show cause why this case 20 || should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court deadlines. Plaintiff shall file a declaration by February 6, 2025. Notice is hereby provided that failure to file 97 || written response will be deemed an admission that you do not intend to prosecute, and this case 23 will likely be dismissed. Thus, it is imperative the Court receive a written response by the deadline above. 6 Dated: January 23, 2025 27 LAA. lj □ □ THOMAS S. HIXSON 28 United States Magistrate Judge