Earls
(PC) Brown v. Earls
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 MARK ANTHONY BROWN, Case No. 2:22-cv-00359-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 v. RESPONSE DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE
DAYS
14 D. EARLS Jr., et al.,
15 Defendants. 16 17 On October 10, 2023, defendants filed a motion to compel. ECF No. 29. After plaintiff 18 failed to file a response, on February 8, 2024, I directed plaintiff to file an opposition or statement 19 of non-opposition to defendants’ motion within twenty-one days. ECF No. 37. To date, plaintiff 20 has not filed a response. 21 To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet certain deadlines. 22 The court may impose sanctions, including dismissing a case, for failure to comply with its orders 23 or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. 24 Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 25 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district…