Warden

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DIEGO MORALES-RAMIREZ, Case No. 2:23-cv-01575-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER 13 v. TO SHOW CAUSE FOR PETITIONER’S

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

14 WARDEN,

RESPONSE DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE

15 Respondent. DAYS 16 17 On February 6, 2024, respondent filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 8. To date, 18 petitioner has not filed an opposition or statement of non-opposition. 19 To manage its docket effectively, the court imposes deadlines and requires litigants to 20 meet those deadlines. The court may dismiss a case for petitioner’s failure to prosecute or failure 21 to comply with its orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41; Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. 22 U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he consensus among our sister circuits, 23 with which we agree, is that courts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at least under 24 certain circumstances.”). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but the court has a duty to 25 …