(PS) Hill v. City of Sacramento

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ARNITHA HILL, et al., No. 2:22-cv-01625 DAD AC PS 11 Plaintiffs, 12 v. ORDER and 13 CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiffs are proceeding in this action pro se. The action was accordingly referred to the 17 undersigned for pretrial matters by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(21). On October 7, 2022, 18 defendants filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 5. Plaintiffs did not respond to the motion. 19 On October 26, 2022, concerned that plaintiffs had abandoned this case, the court issued an order 20 to show cause within 14 days why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 21 ECF No. 6. Plaintiffs were cautioned that failure respond could lead to a recommendation that 22 the action be dismissed. Id. at 2. Plaintiffs again did not respond. Plaintiffs have not responded 23 to the court’s orders, nor taken any action to prosecute this case. 24 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing…