Morrey Selck v. County of Sacramento, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: October 10, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01761
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MORREY SELCK, Case No. 2:25-cv-1761-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants, 16 17 On September 3, 2025, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s first amended 18 complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. ECF No. 13. To date, plaintiff has 19 not responded to defendants’ motion. 20 Under the court’s local rules, a responding party is required to file an opposition or 21 statement of non-opposition to a motion no later than fourteen days after the date it was filed. 22 E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet 23 certain deadlines. The court may impose sanctions, including dismissing a case, for failure to 24 comply with its orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Hells Canyon 25 Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 26 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court has a 27 duty to administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See 28 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 1 The court will give plaintiff the opportunity to explain why sanctions should not be 2 | imposed for failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion. 3 | Plaintiff's failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure to comply with a court order and 4 | will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 5 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 6 1. The October 16, 2025 hearing on defendants’ motion is continued to November 20, 7 | 2025, at 10:00 a.m. 8 2. By no later than October 30, 2025, plaintiff shall file an opposition or statement of 9 | non-opposition to defendants’ motion. 10 3. Plaintiff shall show cause, by no later than October 30, 2025, why sanctions should not 11 | be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ 12 | motion. 13 4. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiff's opposition, if any, no later than November 14 } 13, 2025. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ October 10, 2025 18 JEREMY D. PETERSON 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28