(PC) Reyes v. Matteson

Opinion

BRAULIO ULISES REYES, Case No. 2:20-cv-00815-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 Defendants. DAYS On November 10, 2020, the court screened plaintiff’s first amended complaint, notified plaintiff that it did not state a claim, and granted plaintiff thirty days to file a second amended complaint. ECF No. 17. Plaintiff was subsequently granted two sixty-day extensions, with the most recent extension granting plaintiff until April 19, 2021 to file an amended complaint. ECF Nos. 19, 21. Despite those extensions, plaintiff has not filed a second 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. I will give plaintiff a chance to explain why the court should not dismiss the case for his failure to file an amended complaint. Plaintiffs 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 second amended complaint. ll ( ie — Dated: _ May 4, 2021 q_——— JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE