(PC) Jones v. Placer County Sheriff's Office et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LLOYD DYLAN JONES,
PLACER COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE,
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
On September 28, 2020, the court informed plaintiff that he could proceed on the fourth
amended complaint’s viable Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims against defendants
Gualco and Tredinnick and Eighth Amendment claim against defendant County of Placer. ECF
No. 28. All other claims were dismissed with leave to amend. Id. at 6-7. Plaintiff was ordered to
file, within thirty days, a notice of election advising the court whether he elects to proceed with
the viable claims or file an amended complaint. Id. at 7-8. Plaintiff failed to comply with that
order. Accordingly, on December 4, 2020, plaintiff was ordered to show cause why this action
should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with court orders.
In response, plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint. ECF No. 31. That motion
was granted, the December 4, 2020 order to show cause was discharged, and plaintiff was ordered
to file a fifth amended complaint by January 18, 2021. ECF No. 32. That deadline has passed,
and plaintiff has not filed a fifth amended complaint.
To manage its docket effectively, the court imposes deadlines and requires litigants to
meet those deadlines. When a plaintiff fails to comply with court-imposed deadlines, the court
may dismiss the plaintiff’s case for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41; Hells Canyon
Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he consensus among
our sister circuits, with which we agree, is that courts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte,
at least under certain circumstances.”). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but the 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 an opportunity to explain why the court should not dismiss his case
for failure prosecute and failure to comply with the court’s order requiring him to file a fifth
amended complaint. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this order will constitute another failure to
comply with a court order and will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.
Accordingly, plaintiff must show cause within twenty-one days of the date of entry of this order
why the court should not dismiss his case for failure to prosecute and failure comply with court
orders. Should plaintiff wish to continue with this lawsuit, he shall also file, within twenty-one
days, a fifth amended complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 17, 2021
JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?