(PC) Hodge v. Taylor

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedFebruary 23, 2024
Docket2:19-cv-01956
StatusUnknown

This text of (PC) Hodge v. Taylor ((PC) Hodge v. Taylor) 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) Hodge v. Taylor, (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 JASON ROBERT HODGE, Case No. 2:19-cv-01956-DAD-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 v. RESPONSE DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS 14 TAYLOR, et al.,

15 Defendants. 16 17 On November 17, 2023, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 114. 18 That same day, plaintiff filed a motion seeking additional time to submit his motion for summary 19 judgment. ECF No. 118. On November 27, 2023, I granted plaintiff thirty days to file his motion 20 for summary judgment. ECF No. 120. Approximately two weeks later, plaintiff filed a second 21 motion, this time seeking sixty days to file his motion for summary judgment. ECF 121. I 22 granted his motion but reminded plaintiff that his opposition or statement of non-opposition to 23 defendants’ motion for summary judgment was due December 11, 2023. ECF No. 122. To date, 24 plaintiff has neither filed a response to defendants’ motion nor filed a motion for summary 25 judgment. 26 To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet certain deadlines. 27 The court may impose sanctions, including dismissing a case, for failure to comply with its orders 28 or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. 1 | Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 2 | 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court has a duty to administer 3 || justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 4 | F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 5 I will give plaintiff a chance to explain why the court should not dismiss the case for his 6 | failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion. Plaintiff's 7 | failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure to comply with a court order and will result 8 | in arecommendation that this action be dismissed. Accordingly, plaintiff is ordered to show 9 | cause within twenty-one days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and 10 | failure to comply with court orders. Should plaintiff wish to continue with this lawsuit, he shall 11 | file, within twenty-one days, an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion. 12 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 ( 4 ie — Dated: _ February 23, 2024 Q_—_—. 15 JEREMY D. PETERSON 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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) Hodge v. Taylor, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-hodge-v-taylor-caed-2024.