(PS) Hill v. City of Sacramento

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