Cissna

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RYAN NEIL SHROPSHIRE, Case No. 2:21-cv-01693-TLN-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

TERRIE CISSNA, et al.,

RESPONSE DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE

Defendants. DAYS 16 On May 11, 2022, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint, notified him that his claims were barred under the Heck doctrine, and gave him thirty days to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 13. 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 may 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). …