Estavillo v. Cortese

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 4 8 ERIK ESTAVILLO, Case No. 23-cv-04032-VKD 9 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE 10 Vv. DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 11 DAVE CORTESE, et al., 2 Defendants.

v 14 On July 16, 2024, the Court re-set the deadline for Mr. Estavillo to file an amended

15 |} complaint to August 6, 2024. Dkt. No. 46. The Court’s order stated that Mr. Estavillo’s “failure 16 || to comply with court-ordered deadlines may result in the dismissal of this case for his lack of

= 17 || attention to it and failure to prosecute this matter.” Jd. The docket indicates that Mr. Estavillo has

18 || not filed an amended complaint. 19 The Court possesses the inherent power to dismiss an action sua sponte “to achieve the 20 || orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-33 21 || (1962). By August 23, 2024, Mr. Estavillo shall file a written response to this order explaining 22 || why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute his case. If Mr. Estavillo does 23 || not respond to this order by the August 23, 2024 deadline, the Court will dismiss this action 24 || without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: August 9, 2024

27 VuraivinE, LaMarche > Virginia K. DeMarchi 8 United States Magistrate Judge