(PS) Van Den Heuvel v. Walmart Super Store

E.D. California

(PS) Van Den Heuvel v. Walmart Super Store

DecidedApril 5, 2023

Docket2:22-cv-00249

StatusUnknown

This text of (PS) Van Den Heuvel v. Walmart Super Store ((PS) Van Den Heuvel v. Walmart Super Store) 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

(PS) Van Den Heuvel v. Walmart Super Store, (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 JEAN MARC VAN DEN HEUVEL, Case No. 2:22-cv-00249-DJC-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 13 v. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 14 WALMART SUPER STORE, et al., RESPONSE DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN 15 Defendants. DAYS 16 17 On December 21, 2022, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint, notified him that it failed 18 to state a claim, and gave him thirty days to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 5. To date, 19 plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. 20 To manage its docket effectively, the court imposes deadlines on litigants and requires 21 litigants to meet those deadlines. The court may impose sanctions, including dismissing a case, 22 for failure to comply with its orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; 23 Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. 24 King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a 25 district court has a duty to administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the 26 parties. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 27 The court will give plaintiff an opportunity to explain why this case should not be 28 dismissed for failure to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this order will 1 | constitute a failure to comply with a court order and will result in a recommendation that this 2 | action be dismissed. Accordingly, plaintiff is ordered to show cause within fourteen days why 3 | this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to state a claim. Should 4 | plaintiff wish to continue with this lawsuit, he shall file, within fourteen days, an amended 5 | complaint. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ April 5, 2023 q_———. 9 JEREMY D. PETERSON 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11 12 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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEAN MARC VAN DEN HEUVEL, Case No. 2:22-cv-00249-DJC-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 13 v. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 14 WALMART SUPER STORE, et al., RESPONSE DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN 15 Defendants. DAYS 16 17 On December 21, 2022, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint, notified him that it failed 18 to state a claim, and gave him thirty days to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 5. To date, 19 plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. 20 To manage its docket effectively, the court imposes deadlines on litigants and requires 21 litigants to meet those deadlines. The court may impose sanctions, including dismissing a case, 22 for failure to comply with its orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; 23 Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. 24 King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a 25 district court has a duty to administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the 26 parties. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 27 The court will give plaintiff an opportunity to explain why this case should not be 28 dismissed for failure to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this order will 1 | constitute a failure to comply with a court order and will result in a recommendation that this 2 | action be dismissed. Accordingly, plaintiff is ordered to show cause within fourteen days why 3 | this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to state a claim. Should 4 | plaintiff wish to continue with this lawsuit, he shall file, within fourteen days, an amended 5 | complaint. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ April 5, 2023 q_———. 9 JEREMY D. PETERSON 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PS) Van Den Heuvel v. Walmart Super Store, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ps-van-den-heuvel-v-walmart-super-store-caed-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack