Stewart v. VA Medical Center

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 WILLIAM-BULLOCK STEWART, Case No. 22-cv-04683-AMO

8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 23 10 VA MEDICAL CENTER, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 On August 15, 2022, pro se Plaintiff William-Bullock Stewart filed a Complaint in this 14 District Court against Defendant VA Medical Center and some 87 individuals it employs. Dkt. 1. 15 On May 22, 2023, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter 16 jurisdiction. Dkt. 23. Under Civil Local Rule 7-3, Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ Motion was 17 due by June 5, 2023. That deadline has passed, and Plaintiff still has not filed a response to 18 Defendants’ Motion. 19 Rule 41 accords a district court discretion to dismiss a plaintiff’s action because of his 20 failure to prosecute, to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or to comply with a 21 court order. See, e.g., Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dep’t, 530 F.3d 1124, 1129 (9th Cir. 22 2008); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal of a pro se 23 prisoner’s civil rights action where the plaintiff failed to comply with the court’s order to file an 24 amended pleading); Oliva v. Sullivan, 948 F.2d 272, 273-74 (9th Cir. 1992) (noting that the 25 district court may dismiss sua sponte for failure to meet a court deadline). 26 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE why Defendants’ Motion to 27 Dismiss should not be granted. In particular, he must file a written response to Defendants’ 1 2023. If plaintiff no longer intends to prosecute this case, he should file a notice of voluntary 2 || dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a). Failure to respond to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss as 3 ordered may result in the motion being granted, and the action being dismissed with prejudice. 5 || Dated: June 12, 2023 col Mod 7 ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 a 12

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28