Hill

(PC) Meneese v. Hill

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 5, 20242:23-cv-00976California426 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 JAMAR MENEESE, Case No. 2:23-cv-00976-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 RICK HILL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On November 19, 2023, I screened plaintiff’s amended complaint and notified him that it 18 did not state a cognizable claim. ECF No. 7. I granted him thirty days to file either an amended 19 complaint or an advisement indicating his intent to stand by his current one, subject to a 20 recommendation that it be dismissed. I subsequently granted three of plaintiff’s request for 21 additional time to file an amended complaint, with the latest deadline as March 23, 2024. ECF 22 No. 15. To date, plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. 23 To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet certain deadlines. 24 The court may impose sanctions, including dismissing a case, for failure to comply with its orders 25 or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Hells Canyon Pres. Council v.…

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.