(PC) Lopa v. State of California
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HAROLD TYLER LOPA, Case No. 2:22-cv-01609-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS
CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
13 v. FAILURE TO PAY THE FILING FEE,
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE, AND FAILURE
14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS 15 Defendants. RESPONSE DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE
DAYS
16
17 18 On October 4, 2022, I ordered plaintiff to submit within thirty days either the $402 filing 19 fee or a complete application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.1 ECF No. 7. To date, 20 plaintiff has not complied with that order. 21 To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet certain deadlines. 22 The court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of a case, for failure to comply with court 23 orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Hells Canyon Pres. Council 24 v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 25