Cato v. Darst et al

Filing 59

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 11/13/20 ORDERING plaintiff is ordered to show cause within thirty 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 thirty days of the date of this order, also file an opposition or statement of opposition to defendants motion.(Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMES CATO,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Case No. 2:17-cv-01873-TLN-JDP (PC)
Plaintiff,

v.

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

M. DURST, et al.,
ECF No. 57
Defendants.
RESPONSE DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
On October 6, 2020, defendants Romero and Darst filed a motion to compel plaintiff to

18

provide responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents. ECF No. 57. To

19

date, plaintiff has filed neither an opposition nor a statement of non-opposition to the motion.

20

In cases where a party is incarcerated and proceeding without counsel, a responding party

21

is required to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to a motion not more twenty-one

22

days after the date the motion is served. E.D. Cal. L.R. to Local Rule 230(l). Failure “to file an

23

opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to

24

the granting of the motion and may result in the imposition of sanctions.” Id.

25

To manage its docket effectively, the court imposes deadlines on litigants and requires

26

litigants to meet those deadlines. The court may dismiss a case for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute

27

or failure to comply with its orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Hells Canyon Pres.

28

Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439,
1

1

1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court has a duty to

2

administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See Pagtalunan v.

3

Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.

4

Plaintiff will be given a chance to explain why the court should not dismiss the case for

5

his failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the court’s local rules. Accordingly, plaintiff is

6

ordered to show cause within thirty days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to

7

prosecute and failure to comply with the local rules. Should plaintiff wish to continue with this

8

lawsuit, plaintiff shall, within thirty days of the date of this order, also file an opposition or

9

statement of opposition to defendants’ motion.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
Dated:
13
14

November 13, 2020
JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2