KARL GREGOIRE v. SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT

Opinion

3 4 KARL GREGOIRE, Case No. 25-cv-02150-TSH 5 Plaintiff, 6 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TRANSIT DISTRICT, ° Defendant. 9 10 On April 1, 2026, Defendant San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District filed a motion for terminating sanctions. ECF No. 34. Plaintiff Karl Gregoire failed to file an opposition in "2 compliance with Civil Local Rule 7. The Court possesses the inherent power to dismiss an action = 3 sua sponte if a plaintiff fails to prosecute their action or fails to comply with court orders. Fed. R. 5 Civ. P. 41(b); see Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962) (dismissal for failure to 15 prosecute); Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 987 (9th Cir. 1999) (dismissal for failure to 16 comply with court orders). Accordingly, the Court hereby VACATES the May 7, 2026 noticed hearing date and ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for 18 |! faiture to prosecute and failure to comply with court deadlines. Plaintiff shall file a declaration by 19 April 23, 2026 and simultaneously file either an opposition in compliance with Civil Local Rule 7- 20 3(a) or a statement of nonopposition in compliance with Local Rule 7-3(b). If Plaintiff files an 21 opposition, Defendant may file any reply by April 30, 2026. 22 Notice is hereby provided that failure to file a written response will be deemed an 23 admission that you do not intend to prosecute, and this case will likely be dismissed. Thus, it is 24 || imperative the Court receive a written response by the deadline above. 26 || Dated: April 16, 2026 27 TAA. Ij □ 28 THOMAS S. HIXSON United States Magistrate Judge