(PS) Rovito v. Mather Dept. of VA Medical Center

Opinion

ALESSANDRA JULIETTA ROVITO, Case No. 2:22-cv-00529-KJM-JDP (PS) Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR v. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL RULES VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL ECF No. 3

Defendant. On March 29, 2022, defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. ECF No. 3. To date, plaintiff has not filed a response. Under the court’s local rules, a responding party is required to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to a motion no later than fourteen days after the date it was filed. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). 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. The court will give plaintiff an opportunity to explain why this case should not be dismissed for failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion. Plaintiff's 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, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The May 5, 2022 hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss is continued to June 9, 2022, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 9. 2. By no later than May 19, 2022, plaintiff shall file an opposition or statement of non- opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss. See ECF No. 3. 3. Plaintiff shall show cause, by no later than May 19, 2022, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the court’s local rules. 4. Defendant may file a reply to plaintiffs opposition, if any, no later than June 2, 2022 5. Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution, failure to comply with court orders, and failure to comply with local rules. ( q oy — Dated: _ May 3, 2022 q_-—_— JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE