Warden
(PC) Perryman v. Warden
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DAVID PERRYMAN, Case No. 2:21-cv-00421-JDP (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS
CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
v. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE
TO STATE A CLAIM
WARDEN,
RESPONSE DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE
Defendant. DAYS 16 17 On March 31, 2021, I screened plaintiff’s complaint, notified him that the complaint failed to state a claim, and gave him sixty days to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 6. To date, plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. To manage its docket effectively, the court imposes deadlines on litigants and requires litigants to meet those deadlines. The court can dismiss a case for plaintiff’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…