(PC) Bejarano v. Lynch

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedFebruary 7, 2024
Docket2:23-cv-01620
StatusUnknown

This text of (PC) Bejarano v. Lynch ((PC) Bejarano v. Lynch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
(PC) Bejarano v. Lynch, (E.D. Cal. 2024).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BOB BEJARANO, Case No. 2:23-cv-01620-WBS-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 JEFF LYNCH, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On November 2, 2023, I screened plaintiff’s complaint and notified him that it did not 18 state a cognizable claim. ECF No. 7. I granted him thirty days to file either an amended 19 complaint or an advisement indicating his intent to stand by his current one, subject to a 20 recommendation that it be dismissed. On December 12, 2024, I granted plaintiff an extension of 21 time until January 2, 2024, to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 12. To date, plaintiff has not 22 filed an amended complaint. 23 To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet certain deadlines. 24 The court may impose sanctions, including dismissing a case, for failure to comply with its orders 25 or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. 26 Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 27 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court has a duty to administer 28 justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 1 | F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 2 I will give plaintiff a chance to explain why the court should not dismiss the case for his 3 | failure to file an amended complaint or advisement of his intent to stand by his current complaint. 4 | Plaintiff's failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure to comply with a court order and 5 | will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Accordingly, plaintiff is ordered to 6 | show cause within twenty-one days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute 7 | and failure to comply with court orders. Should plaintiff wish to continue with this lawsuit, he 8 || shall file, within twenty-one days, an amended complaint or advisement of his intent to stand by 9 | his current complaint. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 ( 1 ow — Dated: _ February 7, 2024 Q_———— 14 JEREMY D. PETERSON 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Gregory Carey v. John E. King
856 F.2d 1439 (Ninth Circuit, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
(PC) Bejarano v. Lynch, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-bejarano-v-lynch-caed-2024.