CDCR

(PC) Ross v. CDCR

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMarch 18, 20242:23-cv-01920California357 words

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 MALCOLM RAY ROSS, Case No. 2:23-cv-01920-KJM-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 CDCR, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On December 12, 2023, I screened plaintiff’s complaint and notified him that it did not 18 state a cognizable claim. ECF No. 14. On February 5, 2024, the court granted him thirty days to 19 file an amended complaint. ECF No. 15. To date, plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. 20 To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet certain deadlines. 21 The court may impose sanctions, including dismissing a case, for failure to comply with its orders 22 or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. 23 Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 24 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court has a duty to administer 25 justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the…

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.