(PC) Harris v. Mkrtchyan

Opinion

EMMETT HARRIS, Case No. 2:19-cv-01040-JAM-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 RESPONSE DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE Defendant. DAYS On June 28, 2021, the court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and dismissed plaintiff’s second amended complaint. ECF No. 38. Plaintiff was granted thirty days to file a third amended complaint. Id. He was subsequently granted an extension until August 25, 2021 to file his amended complaint. ECF No. 40. Despite that extension, plaintiff has not filed a third amended complaint. 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. Plaintiff will be given 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 third amended complaint. ll ( ie - Dated: _ September 16, 2021 Q_—_—. JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE