Raheem Jones, et al. v. City of Sacramento Board of Supervisors, et al.
This text of Raheem Jones, et al. v. City of Sacramento Board of Supervisors, et al. (Raheem Jones, et al. v. City of Sacramento Board of Supervisors, et al.) 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.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAHEEM JONES, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-0864-DJC-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 CITY OF SACRAMENTO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16
17 18 On August 25, 2025, defendant City of Sacramento filed a motion to dismiss this case for 19 failure to state a claim. ECF No. 26. To date, plaintiffs have not responded to defendant’s 20 motion. 21 Under the court’s local rules, a responding party is required to file an opposition or 22 statement of non-opposition to a motion no later than fourteen days after the date it was filed. 23 E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet 24 certain deadlines. The court may impose sanctions, including dismissing a case, for failure to 25 comply with its orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Hells Canyon 26 Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 27 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court has a 28 1 | duty to administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See 2 | Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 3 The court will give plaintiffs the opportunity to explain why sanctions should not be 4 | imposed for failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion. 5 | Plaintiffs’ failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure to comply with a court order and 6 | will result in dismissal of this action. 7 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 8 1. The October 2, 2025 hearing on defendant’s motion is continued to November 6, 2025, 9 | at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 9. 10 2. By no later than October 16, 2025, plaintiffs shall file an opposition or statement of 11 || non-opposition to defendant’s motion. 12 3. Plaintiffs shall show cause, by no later than October 16, 2025, why sanctions should 13 | not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to 14 | defendant’s motion. 15 4. Defendant may file a reply to plaintiffs’ opposition, if any, no later than October 30, 16 | 2025. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 ( q Sty — Dated: _ October 1, 2025 Q———— 20 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Raheem Jones, et al. v. City of Sacramento Board of Supervisors, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raheem-jones-et-al-v-city-of-sacramento-board-of-supervisors-et-al-caed-2025.