(PC) Louprasong v. San Joaquin County Jail Recreational

E.D. California

(PC) Louprasong v. San Joaquin County Jail Recreational

DecidedJanuary 24, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-03416

StatusUnknown

This text of (PC) Louprasong v. San Joaquin County Jail Recreational ((PC) Louprasong v. San Joaquin County Jail Recreational) 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) Louprasong v. San Joaquin County Jail Recreational, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AMPHONE LOUPRASONG, Case No. 2:24-cv-3416-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY JAIL RECREATIONAL, 15 Defendant. 16

17 18 19 On December 19, 2024, I ordered plaintiff to explain, within twenty-one days, why he 20 should be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis despite his trust fund account statement showing 21 an available balance of $1,496. ECF No. 4. To date, plaintiff has not complied with that order. 22 To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet certain deadlines. 23 The court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of a case, for failure to comply with court 24 orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Hells Canyon Pres. Council 25 v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 26 (9th Cir. 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court has a duty to 27 28 1 | administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See Pagtalunan v. 2 | Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 3 Plaintiff will be given a chance to explain why the court should not dismiss his case based 4 | on his failure to respond to the court’s December 19, 2024 order. Plaintiff's failure to respond to 5 | this order will constitute another failure to comply with a court order and will result in a 6 || recommendation that this action be dismissed. Accordingly, plaintiff is ordered to show cause 7 | within twenty-one days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with court 8 | orders. Should plaintiff wish to continue with this action, he must, within twenty-one days, 9 | explain why he should still be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis. 10 Wl IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 ( iy — Dated: _ January 24, 2025 Q_——— 13 JEREMY D. PETERSON 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AMPHONE LOUPRASONG, Case No. 2:24-cv-3416-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY JAIL RECREATIONAL, 15 Defendant. 16

17 18 19 On December 19, 2024, I ordered plaintiff to explain, within twenty-one days, why he 20 should be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis despite his trust fund account statement showing 21 an available balance of $1,496. ECF No. 4. To date, plaintiff has not complied with that order. 22 To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet certain deadlines. 23 The court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of a case, for failure to comply with court 24 orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Hells Canyon Pres. Council 25 v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 26 (9th Cir. 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court has a duty to 27 28 1 | administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See Pagtalunan v. 2 | Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 3 Plaintiff will be given a chance to explain why the court should not dismiss his case based 4 | on his failure to respond to the court’s December 19, 2024 order. Plaintiff's failure to respond to 5 | this order will constitute another failure to comply with a court order and will result in a 6 || recommendation that this action be dismissed. Accordingly, plaintiff is ordered to show cause 7 | within twenty-one days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with court 8 | orders. Should plaintiff wish to continue with this action, he must, within twenty-one days, 9 | explain why he should still be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis. 10 Wl IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 ( iy — Dated: _ January 24, 2025 Q_——— 13 JEREMY D. PETERSON 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PC) Louprasong v. San Joaquin County Jail Recreational, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-louprasong-v-san-joaquin-county-jail-recreational-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack