(PC) Zinda v. Amador County Sheriff Dept.

E.D. California

(PC) Zinda v. Amador County Sheriff Dept.

DecidedFebruary 8, 2023

Docket2:22-cv-01990

StatusUnknown

This text of (PC) Zinda v. Amador County Sheriff Dept. ((PC) Zinda v. Amador County Sheriff Dept.) 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) Zinda v. Amador County Sheriff Dept., (E.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAUL ZINDA, Case No. 2:22-cv-01990-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 13 v. FAILURE TO PAY THE FILING FEE AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT 14 AMADOR COUNTY SHERIFF ORDERS DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 RESPONSE DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE Defendants. DAYS 16

17 18 On November 29, 2022, I denied plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and 19 directed him to submit within thirty days a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis, 20 including a certified copy of his trust account statement. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff submitted his trust 21 account statement on December 9, 2022, ECF No. 7, but has not submitted an application to 22 proceed in forma pauperis. 23 To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet certain deadlines. 24 The court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of a case, for failure to comply with court 25 orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Hells Canyon Pres. Council 26 v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 27 (9th Cir. 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court has a duty to 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 either pay the filing fee or submit a complete application for leave to proceed in 5 | forma pauperis. Plaintiffs failure to respond to this order will constitute another failure to 6 | comply with a court order and will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 7 | Accordingly, plaintiff is ordered to show cause within twenty-one days why this case should not 8 | be dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee and failure to comply with court orders. Should 9 | plaintiff wish to continue with this action, he must, within twenty-one days, either pay the $402 10 | filing fee or submit a complete application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Clerk of 11 | Court is directed to send to plaintiff the court’s form application for leave to proceed in forma 12 | pauperis. 13 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 ( 1 ow — Dated: _ February 7, 2023 q-—— 16 JEREMY D. PETERSON 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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 PAUL ZINDA, Case No. 2:22-cv-01990-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 13 v. FAILURE TO PAY THE FILING FEE AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT 14 AMADOR COUNTY SHERIFF ORDERS DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 RESPONSE DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE Defendants. DAYS 16

17 18 On November 29, 2022, I denied plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and 19 directed him to submit within thirty days a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis, 20 including a certified copy of his trust account statement. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff submitted his trust 21 account statement on December 9, 2022, ECF No. 7, but has not submitted an application to 22 proceed in forma pauperis. 23 To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet certain deadlines. 24 The court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of a case, for failure to comply with court 25 orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Hells Canyon Pres. Council 26 v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 27 (9th Cir. 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court has a duty to 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 either pay the filing fee or submit a complete application for leave to proceed in 5 | forma pauperis. Plaintiffs failure to respond to this order will constitute another failure to 6 | comply with a court order and will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 7 | Accordingly, plaintiff is ordered to show cause within twenty-one days why this case should not 8 | be dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee and failure to comply with court orders. Should 9 | plaintiff wish to continue with this action, he must, within twenty-one days, either pay the $402 10 | filing fee or submit a complete application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Clerk of 11 | Court is directed to send to plaintiff the court’s form application for leave to proceed in forma 12 | pauperis. 13 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 ( 1 ow — Dated: _ February 7, 2023 q-—— 16 JEREMY D. PETERSON 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PC) Zinda v. Amador County Sheriff Dept., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-zinda-v-amador-county-sheriff-dept-caed-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack