Opinion
2:19-cv-02374-KJM-JDP
12-09-2021
GARRISON JONES, Plaintiff, v. VELOCITY TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE RESPONSE DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS ORDER VACATING THE DECEMBER 16, 2021 MOTION HEARING
JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On November 12, 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss and noticed the motion for hearing. ECF No. 109. Plaintiff has not responded, and the deadline to do so has passed. Accordingly, I will order plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The court will also grant plaintiff another opportunity to respond to the pending motion.
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 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 plaintiffs failure to prosecute. Plaintiffs 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, it is hereby ordered that:
1. Plaintiff is ordered to show cause within 30 days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
2. Plaintiff is ordered to file a response to defendants' motion to dismiss, ECF No. 109, within 30 days of the date of entry of this order.
3. The motion hearing set for December 16, 2021 is hereby vacated.
4. Defendants' motion to dismiss, ECF No. 109, will be submitted on the briefs without a hearing. Defendants may file a reply within seven days of service of plaintiff s response.
IT IS SO ORDERED.