CDCR

(PC) Springfield v. CDCR

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 17, 20232:23-cv-00594California405 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

c 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CIRON B. SPRINGFIELD, Case No. 2:23-cv-00594-JDP (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE CDCR, et al., ECF No. 7 Defendants. 16 On September 20, 2023, I screened plaintiff’s complaint and notified him that only some of his claims were cognizable. ECF No. 7. I granted him thirty days to file either an amended complaint or an advisement indicating his intent to proceed only with the identified cognizable claims. To date, plaintiff has not filed a response to the September 20, 2023 order. 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…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.