(PC) Murillo v. District Attorney Office

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CIXTO CRUZ MURILLO, Case No. 2:22-cv-01920-JDP (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE, et al., Defendant. 16 On July 13, 2023, I screened plaintiff’s amended complaint and notified him that his complaint did not state cognizable claims. ECF No. 21. I granted him thirty days to file an amended complaint or an advisement indicating his intent to stand by his current complaint, subject to a recommendation of dismissal. To date, plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Plaintiff has, however, filed a response to the July 13 order, which states in part, “go ahead dismiss [the complaint.]” ECF No. 23 at 1.1 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.

1 If…