(PC) Quarles v. California State Prison Corcoran

District Court, E.D. California·Decided March 3, 2020·No. 1:19-cv-00109·Unknown

Opinion

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

9 NIKKO JAVOR QUARLES, Case No. 1:19-cv-00109-AWI-JDP

10 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS 11 v. CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE 12 CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER CORCORAN, et al., 13 Defendants. THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 14

15 Plaintiff Nikko Javor Quarles is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil 16 rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint was screened on July 17, 17 2019, and plaintiff was ordered to respond within thirty days. ECF No. 10. On August 15, 18 2019, plaintiff moved for a thirty-day extension, ECF No. 13, which we granted, ECF No. 14. 19 Plaintiff, however, has filed neither a response to the screening order nor a first amended 20 complaint. 21 To manage our docket effectively, we impose deadlines and require litigants to meet 22 those deadlines. When a plaintiff fails to comply with court-imposed deadlines, the court may 23 dismiss the plaintiff’s case for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41; Hells Canyon Pres. 24 Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he consensus among our 25 sister circuits, with which we agree, is that courts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at 26 least under certain circumstances.”). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but the court has 27 a duty to administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See 1 | Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 2 We will give plaintiff the opportunity to explain why the court should not dismiss his 3 | case for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff's failure to respond to this order will constitute another 4 | failure to comply with a court order and will result in dismissal of this case. Accordingly, 5 | plaintiff must show cause within thirty days of the date of entry of this order why the court 6 | should not dismiss his case for failure to prosecute. 7 T IS SO ORDERED.

° : CN prssenn —_ ated: _ March 2, 2020 10 UNI STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 | No. 204. 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) Quarles v. California State Prison Corcoran, (E.D. Cal. 2020).

(PC) Quarles v. California State Prison Corcoran ((PC) Quarles v. California State Prison Corcoran) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related