Deems
(PC) Mills v. Deems
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RODNEY JAMES MILLS, Case No. 2:22-cv-01738-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
MICHAEL R. DEEMS, et al.,
RESPONSE DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE
Defendants. DAYS 16 On December 2, 2022, I screened plaintiff’s complaint, notified him that it failed to state a claim, and gave him thirty days to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 11. To date, plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet certain deadlines. The court may impose sanctions, including dismissing a case, for failure to comply with its orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; 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 penalty,…