Louis George, Jr. v. A. Lopez

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: October 2, 2025
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00844
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LOUIS GEORGE, JR., Case No. 2:23-cv-0844-WBS-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 A. LOPEZ, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On August 12, 2025, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 33. To 18 date, plaintiff has not filed a response. 19 To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet certain deadlines. 20 The court may impose sanctions, including dismissing a case, for failure to comply with its orders 21 or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. 22 Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 23 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court has a duty to administer 24 justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 25 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 26 I will give plaintiff a chance to explain why the court should not dismiss the case for his 27 failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion. Plaintiff’s 28 failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure to comply with a court order and will result 1 | in arecommendation that this action be dismissed. Accordingly, plaintiff is ordered to show 2 | cause within twenty-one days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and 3 | failure to comply with local rules. Should plaintiff wish to continue with this lawsuit, he shall 4 | file, within twenty-one days, an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ October 2, 2025 Q_——— 8 JEREMY D. PETERSON 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28