Feedback

Hc Williams V Jones

1                                                                        
2                                                                        
3                                                                        
4                                                                        
5                                                                        
6                                                                        
7                                                                        
8                      UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                      
9                 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA                 
10                                                                        
11  KIRK DOUGLAS WILLIAMS,           Case No.  2:23-cv-1862-DC-JDP (P)    
12               Petitioner,                                              
13       v.                          ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE                  
14  GENA JONES,                                                           
15               Respondent.                                              
16                                                                        
17                                                                        
18       On March 10, 2025, the court notified petitioner that his second amended petition failed to 
19  state a claim.  ECF No. 30.  The court granted petitioner thirty days to file an amended petition.  
20  Id.  The court granted petitioner’s motion for an extension of time and provided him an additional 
21  thirty days from April 7, 2025 to file an amended petition.  ECF No. 33.  Petitioner objected to 
22  the court only granting him thirty days, but petitioner’s motion for an extension of time was silent 
23  on the specific time he sought.  ECF No. 34.  The time for petitioner to file an amended petition 
24  has passed.                                                           
25       To manage its docket effectively, the court imposes deadlines and requires litigants to 
26  meet those deadlines.  The court may dismiss a case based on petitioner’s failure to prosecute or 
27  failure to comply with its orders or local rules.  See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41; Hells Canyon Pres. 
28                                                                        
1  |  Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he consensus among our 
2 |  sister circuits, with which we agree, is that courts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at 
3  |  least under certain circumstances.”).  Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but the court has a 
4  |  duty to administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties.  See 
5  |  Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 
6          Petitioner will be given a final opportunity to explain why the court should not dismiss his 
7  |  case for failure to file an amended petition.  Petitioner’s failure to respond to this order will 
8 |  constitute a failure to comply with a court order and will result in dismissal of this case. 
9  |  Accordingly, petitioner must show cause within twenty-one days of the date of entry of this order 
10  | why the court should not dismiss his case for failure to state a claim, failure to prosecute, and 
11  |  failure to comply with a court order.  Should petitioner wish to continue with this lawsuit, he shall 
12 |  also file, within twenty-one days, an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus. 
13 
4    IT IS SO ORDERED. 
15                                               (            1 Ow — 
    Dated:  _  July 22, 2025                                             q——— 
16                                           JEREMY D.     PETERSON 
7                                           UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28