Opinion
2:21-cv-01452-TLN-JDP (PS)
06-10-2023
JEAN MARC VAN DEN HEUVEL, Plaintiff, v. TERESA LUA, Defendant.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I previously screened plaintiff's first amended complaint, notified him that it did not state a claim, and recommended that the amended complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. ECF No. 7. After considering plaintiff's objections to that recommendation, I vacated the findings and recommendations and gave him thirty days to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 20. I subsequently granted plaintiff's motion for an extension of time and gave him until May 26, 2023, to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 15. Despite that extension, he has not done so.
To manage its docket effectively, the court imposes deadlines on litigants and requires litigants to meet those deadlines. The court may impose sanctions, which may include dismissing a case, for failure to comply with its orders or local rules. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; 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 to 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 amended complaint. 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, plaintiff is ordered to show cause within fourteen days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to state a claim. Should plaintiff wish to continue with this lawsuit, he shall file, within fourteen days, an amended complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.