(HC) Baker v. Superior Courts of California

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMAUL LEE BAKER, Case No. 2:24-cv-00476-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 v. RESPONSE DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE

DAYS

14 SUPERIOR COURTS OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 On February 23, 2024, I ordered petitioner to submit, within thirty days, either the $5 18 filing fee or an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 9. To date, 19 petitioner has done neither. 20 To manage its docket effectively, the court imposes deadlines on litigants and requires 21 litigants to meet those deadlines. The court may dismiss a case for petitioner’s failure to 22 prosecute or failure to comply with its orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Hells 23 Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 24 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court 25 has a duty to administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See 26…