(PC) Haines v. County of Sacramento

Opinion

MARCUS A. HAINES, Case No. 2:20-cv-01011-TLN-JDP (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR v. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., RESPONSE DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE Defendants. DAYS On April 2, 2021, I screened plaintiff’s first amended complaint and notified him that it failed to state a claim. ECF No. 14. I gave plaintiff sixty days to file an amended complaint. Id. To date, he has not done so. To manage its docket effectively, the court imposes deadlines on litigants and requires litigants to meet those deadlines. The court may dismiss a case for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or failure to comply with its orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); 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. Plaintiff’s 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 state a claim. Should plaintiff wish to continue with this lawsuit, he shall file, within twenty-one days, a first amended complaint.

Dated: _ August 13, 2021 Q————. JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE