Mroczek

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAMON L. ESPINOZA, Case No. 2:23-cv-00228-TLN-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 v. RESPONSE DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN

DAYS

14 RICK MROCZECK, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On February 20, 2024, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint and ordered him to file an 18 amended complaint within thirty days. ECF No. 22. To date, plaintiff has not filed an amended 19 complaint. 20 To manage its docket effectively, the court imposes deadlines on litigants and requires 21 litigants to meet those deadlines. The court may impose sanctions, including dismissing a case, 22 for failure to comply with its orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; 23 Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. 24 King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a 25 district court has a duty to administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for…