Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01378/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01378-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NOMAN AHMAD,

Plaintiff,

v.

GAVIN NEWSOM, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cv-1378-JDP

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On November 19, 2024, defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended 

complaint or, alternatively, for a more definite statement. ECF Nos. 46 & 47. To date, plaintiff 

has not responded to either motion.

Under the court’s local rules, a responding party is required to file an opposition or 

statement of non-opposition to a motion no later than fourteen days after the date it was filed. 

E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet 

certain deadlines. The court may impose sanctions, including dismissing a case, for failure to 

comply with its orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Hells Canyon 

Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 

1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court has a 

duty to administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See 

Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.

Case 2:23-cv-01378-DAD-JDP Document 49 Filed 12/30/24 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

The court will give plaintiff the opportunity to explain why sanctions should not be 

imposed for failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motions. 

Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure to comply with a court order and 

will result in dismissal of this action.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The January 9, 2025 hearing on defendants’ motions is continued to February 6, 2025, 

at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 9.

2. By no later than January 16, 2025, plaintiff shall file an opposition or statement of nonopposition to defendants’ motions. 

3. Plaintiff shall show cause, by no later than January 16, 2025, why sanctions should not 

be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ 

motion. 

4. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition, if any, no later than January 30, 

2025. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 30, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-01378-DAD-JDP Document 49 Filed 12/30/24 Page 2 of 2