(PC) Keck v. Batra

District Court, E.D. California·Decided April 6, 2020·No. 1:19-cv-00910·Unknown

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9 BILL KECK, Case No. 1:19-cv-00910-JDP

10 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS 11 v. CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER 13 Defendant. THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 14 15 Plaintiff Bill Keck is a civil detainee proceeding without counsel and without 16 prepayment of fees in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s 17 complaint was screened on December 2, 2019, and plaintiff was ordered to respond within 18 thirty days. ECF No. 8. Plaintiff, however, has filed neither a response to the screening order 19 nor a first amended complaint. 20 To manage our docket effectively, we impose deadlines and require litigants to meet 21 those deadlines. When a plaintiff fails to comply with court-imposed deadlines, the court may 22 dismiss the plaintiff’s case for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41; Hells Canyon Pres. 23 Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he consensus among our 24 sister circuits, with which we agree, is that courts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at 25 least under certain circumstances.”). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but the court has 26 a duty to administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See 27 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. We will give plaintiff the opportunity to explain why the court should not dismiss his 1 | case for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff's failure to respond to this order will constitute another 2 | failure to comply with a court order and will result in dismissal of this case. Accordingly, 3 | plaintiff must show cause within thirty days of the date of entry of this order why the court 4 | should not dismiss his case for failure to prosecute. 5 ’ p : CN prssenn —_ ated: _ April 4, 2020 8 UNI STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 | No. 205. 11 12 13 14 15 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

(PC) Keck v. Batra, (E.D. Cal. 2020).

(PC) Keck v. Batra ((PC) Keck v. Batra) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related