From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

John v. Hughes

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 14, 2022
2:20-cv-00984-JAM-JDP (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 14, 2022)

Opinion

2:20-cv-00984-JAM-JDP (PC)

06-14-2022

JOSEPH JOHN, Plaintiff, v. Z. HUGHES, Defendant.


ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL RULES ECF No. 32 RESPONSE DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS

JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

On March 3, 2022, defendant filed a motion to modify the scheduling order, to compel plaintiff to provide responses to discovery requests, and to deem admitted defendant's request for admissions. ECF No. 32. To date, plaintiff has not filed an opposition or statement of nonopposition to the motion.

In cases where a party is incarcerated and proceeding without counsel, a responding party is required to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition not more twenty-one days after the date the motion is served. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(1). Failure “to file an opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion and may result in the imposition of sanctions.” Id.

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 its orders or local rules. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); 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 avoid needless burden for the parties. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed.R.Civ.P. 1.

Plaintiff will be given a chance to explain why the court should not dismiss the case for his failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the court's local rules. Accordingly, plaintiff is ordered to show cause within twenty-one days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the local rules. Should plaintiff wish to continue with this lawsuit, plaintiff shall, within twenty-one days, file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant's motion. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

On June 2, 2022, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 33. Plaintiff is reminded that he is required to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to that motion by no later than June 23, 2022. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(1).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

John v. Hughes

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 14, 2022
2:20-cv-00984-JAM-JDP (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 14, 2022)
Case details for

John v. Hughes

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH JOHN, Plaintiff, v. Z. HUGHES, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jun 14, 2022

Citations

2:20-cv-00984-JAM-JDP (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 14, 2022)