(PC) Androshchuk v. Corralejo

Opinion

EDWARD ANDROSHCHUK, Case No. 2:25-cv-0397-JDP (P) Plaintiff, v. ORDER B. CORRALEJO, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff, a state inmate, brings this § 1983 action and concurrently has applied to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. I reviewed his trust fund account statement, and it determined that plaintiff appeared to have sufficient funds to cover the filing fee and still afford the necessities of life. Id. But before recommending that plaintiff’s application be denied, on April 22, 2025, I granted him twenty-one days to explain why he could not both pay the filing fee and still afford his necessities. To date, plaintiff has not complied with that order. To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet certain deadlines. The court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of a case, for failure to comply with court orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court has a duty to administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Plaintiff will be given a chance to explain why the court should not dismiss his case based onhis failure to comply with court orders. Plaintiffs failure to respond to this order will constitute another failure to comply with a court order and will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Accordingly, plaintiff is ordered to show cause within twenty-one days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to with court orders. Should plaintiff wish to continue with this action, he must, within twenty-one days, respond to the court’s April 22, 2025 order. Wl IT IS SO ORDERED. ( 4 ie — Dated: _ June 10, 2025 q-—— JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE