Lundy

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 KEVIN W. DUNIGAN, Case No. 2:23-cv-02699-JDP (HC) Petitioner, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. RESPONSE DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE

DAYS

L. LUNDY, Respondent. 16 On April 11, 2024, I screened petitioner’s first amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus and notified him that it failed to state a viable claim. ECF No. 23. I granted him thirty days to file an amended petition. Id. To date, petitioner has not done so. To manage its docket effectively, the court imposes deadlines and requires litigants to meet those deadlines. The court may dismiss a case based on petitioner’s failure to prosecute or failure to comply with its orders or local rules. 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.”). …