Gaines v. State of California

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: April 19, 2024
• Docket: 3:24-cv-01280
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 RONISHA SHARDE GAINES, Case No. 24-cv-01280-TSH 6 Plaintiff, 7 y. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 8 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 9 Defendant. 10 Plaintiff Ronisha Sharde Gaines initiated this lawsuit by filing a complaint (ECF No. 1) 11 and application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2). On March 15, 2024, the Court granted 12 || Plaintiffs in forma pauperis application but found the complaint deficient under 28 U.S.C. § 13 1915(e). ECF No. 5. The Court directed Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint curing the 14 || deficiencies identified in the screening order by April 12, 2024. The Court warned that if Plaintiff 15 || failed to cure the deficiencies, the case would be reassigned to a district judge with a 16 || recommendation for dismissal. Plaintiff has failed to respond. 3 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 Ronisha Sharde Gaines to show cause why 20 || this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court 21 || deadlines. Plaintiff shall file a declaration by May 3, 2024. Notice is hereby provided that failure 22 || file a written response will be deemed an admission that you do not intend to prosecute, and this 73 || case will likely be dismissed. Thus, it is imperative the Court receive a written response by the 94 || deadline above. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: April 19, 2024 27 [AA Lj, — THOMAS S. HIXSON 28 United States Magistrate Judge