(PC) Jones v. Placer County Sheriff's Office et al

Filing 33

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 2/17/2021 ORDERING Plaintiff to show cause within 21 days of the date of entry of this order why the court should not dismiss this case for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders and ORDERING should Plaintiff wish to continue with this lawsuit, he shall also file, within 21 days, a Fifth Amended Complaint. (Henshaw, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LLOYD DYLAN JONES,

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.
PLACER COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE,
et al.,

Case No. 2:19-cv-00342-MCE-JDP (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS
CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE
COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS
RESPONSE DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE
DAYS

Defendants.

17
18

On September 28, 2020, the court informed plaintiff that he could proceed on the fourth

19

amended complaint’s viable Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims against defendants

20

Gualco and Tredinnick and Eighth Amendment claim against defendant County of Placer. ECF

21

No. 28. All other claims were dismissed with leave to amend. Id. at 6-7. Plaintiff was ordered to

22

file, within thirty days, a notice of election advising the court whether he elects to proceed with

23

the viable claims or file an amended complaint. Id. at 7-8. Plaintiff failed to comply with that

24

order. Accordingly, on December 4, 2020, plaintiff was ordered to show cause why this action

25

should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with court orders.

26

In response, plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint. ECF No. 31. That motion

27

was granted, the December 4, 2020 order to show cause was discharged, and plaintiff was ordered

28

to file a fifth amended complaint by January 18, 2021. ECF No. 32. That deadline has passed,
1

1

and plaintiff has not filed a fifth amended complaint.

2

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

3

meet those deadlines. When a plaintiff fails to comply with court-imposed deadlines, the court

4

may dismiss the plaintiff’s case for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41; Hells Canyon

5

Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he consensus among

6

our sister circuits, with which we agree, is that courts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte,

7

at least under certain circumstances.”). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but the court

8

has a duty to administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See

9

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

10

Plaintiff will be given an opportunity to explain why the court should not dismiss his case

11

for failure prosecute and failure to comply with the court’s order requiring him to file a fifth

12

amended complaint. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this order will constitute another failure to

13

comply with a court order and will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

14

Accordingly, plaintiff must show cause within twenty-one days of the date of entry of this order

15

why the court should not dismiss his case for failure to prosecute and failure comply with court

16

orders. Should plaintiff wish to continue with this lawsuit, he shall also file, within twenty-one

17

days, a fifth amended complaint.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
Dated:
21
22

February 17, 2021
JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2