Opinion
Case No. 1:19-cv-00555-JDP
05-04-2020
VERNELL HOLMES, Plaintiff, v. A. GARCIA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER RESPONSE DUE IN 30 DAYS
Plaintiff, a state inmate previously incarcerated at California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi, proceeds without counsel in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's complaint was screened on October 30, 2019, and plaintiff was ordered to produce documents so that the court could order service. ECF No. 12. That order was returned as undeliverable on November 14, 2019. Under Local Rule 183(b), plaintiff's change of address was due by January 24, 2020, in order for him to avoid dismissal for failure to prosecute. The court has not received an updated address or a response to its order.
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 a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005). 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 a chance to explain why the court should not dismiss the case for his failure to prosecute and to comply with a court order. Plaintiff's failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure to comply with a court order and will result in dismissal of this case.
Accordingly, plaintiff must show cause why the court should not dismiss his case for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff's response is due in thirty days. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 4, 2020
/s/_________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE No. 204.