(PC) Smart v. Navrrow

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AARON SMART, Case No. 1:20-cv-00144-JDP

Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS v. CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE, FAILURE TO NAVRROW, et al., STATE A CLAIM, AND FAILURE TO Defendants. COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER

Plaintiff Aaron Smart is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this action. Plaintiff’s complaint was screened on April 9, 2020, and plaintiff was ordered to file a first amended complaint within sixty days. See ECF No. 14. Plaintiff has not yet done so. To manage our docket effectively, we impose deadlines and require litigants to meet those deadlines. When a plaintiff fails to comply with court-imposed deadlines, the court may dismiss the plaintiff’s case for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41; Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he consensus among our sister circuits, with which we agree, is that courts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at least under certain circumstances.”). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but the 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. We will give plaintiff an opportunity to explain why the court should not dismiss his 4: OV EET RAT RMU OP eee POY ee

case for failure to prosecute and failure to state a claim. Plaintiff's failure to respond to this order will constitute another failure to comply with a court order and will result in dismissal of case. Accordingly, plaintiff must show cause within forty-five days of the date of entry of this order why the court should not dismiss his case for failure to state a claim and failure to prosecute. Should plaintiff wish to continue with this lawsuit, plaintiff should also file a first amended complaint. T IS SO ORDERED.

° : CN prssenn —_ ated: _ June 22, 2020 UNI STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE No. 205.