Baker

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL E. JACQUES, Case No. 2:25-cv-0830-JDP 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 D. BAKER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On September 15, 2025, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, to 18 revoke plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status. ECF No. 19. To date, plaintiff has not filed a 19 response. 20 To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet certain deadlines. 21 The court may impose sanctions, including dismissing a case, for failure to comply with its orders 22 or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. 23 Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 24 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court has a duty to administer 25 justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 26 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 27 …