From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rodriguez v. Ruiz

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 12, 2022
2:20-cv-01525-JDP (PC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2022)

Opinion

2:20-cv-01525-JDP (PC)

10-12-2022

JULIAN RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. MIGUEL RUIZ, et al., Defendants.


ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL RULES

RESPONSE DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS

JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On January 19, 2022 and February 2, 2022, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 41, and a motion to dismiss, ECF No. 45, respectively. To date, plaintiff has not filed a response to either.

Plaintiff has filed eight pages of exhibits-however, there is no accompanying text indicating the purpose of the exhibits. ECF No. 48. Plaintiff does not state whether these exhibits are offered in response to defendants' motions or for some other purpose entirely. Without any indication that these exhibits are in response to defendants' motions, the court cannot conclude that plaintiff has filed a response to either 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 requires litigants to meet certain deadlines. The court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of a case, for failure to comply with court 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 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 timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants' motion. 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 twenty-one days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with the court's local rules. Should plaintiff wish to continue with this lawsuit, he shall, within twenty-one days, file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants' motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Rodriguez v. Ruiz

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 12, 2022
2:20-cv-01525-JDP (PC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2022)
Case details for

Rodriguez v. Ruiz

Case Details

Full title:JULIAN RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. MIGUEL RUIZ, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Oct 12, 2022

Citations

2:20-cv-01525-JDP (PC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2022)