(HC) Adamik v. San Joaquin County Superior Court
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 NICOLE M. ADAMIK, Case No. 2:24-cv-01889-JDP (HC) Petitioner, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. RESPONSE DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE
DAYS
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 On July 18, 2024, I ordered petitioner to submit, within thirty days, either the $5 filing fee or an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 4. To date, petitioner has done neither. To manage its docket effectively, the court imposes deadlines on litigants and requires litigants to meet those deadlines. The court may dismiss a case for petitioner’s failure to prosecute or failure to comply with its orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); 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…