(PC) Cox v. Daram

Opinion

ERNEST LEE COX, JR., Case No. 2:21-cv-1778-DJC-JDP (P) Plaintiff, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE VASUKI DARAM, et al., Defendants. On July 12, 2024, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. ECF No. 46. The court gave plaintiff twenty-one days to file an amended complaint and notified him that should he fail to file an amended complaint, this action would be dismissed. To date, plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet certain deadlines. The court may impose sanctions, including dismissing a case, for failure to comply with its 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. I will give plaintiff a chance to explain why the court should not dismiss the case for his failure to file an amended complaint. Plaintiffs failure to respond to this order will constitute a 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 prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. Should plaintiff wish to continue with this lawsuit, he shall file, within twenty-one days, an amended complaint. g IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ November 20, 2024 Q_——. JEREMY D. PETERSON i UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE