Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00554/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00554-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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

JONATHAN COLLIN AUTRY,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCOTT JONES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:22-cv-00554-TLN-JDP (PC)

ORDER 

On February 23, 2023, I screened plaintiff’s amended complaint and notified him that his 

claims could not all proceed in the same action. ECF No. 21. I granted him thirty days to file an 

amended complaint or an advisement indicating his intent to stand by his current one. Plaintiff 

filed two motions seeking additional time to file an amended complaint, both of which I granted. 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint was due August 11, 2023. ECF No. 26. To date, plaintiff has not 

filed an amended complaint. 

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 

Case 2:22-cv-00554-TLN-JDP Document 27 Filed 09/15/23 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

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

Plaintiff will be given a chance to explain why the court should not dismiss the case for 

his failure to file an amended complaint or advisement of his intent to stand by his current 

complaint. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure to comply with a 

court order and will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Accordingly, 

plaintiff is ordered to show cause within twenty-one days why this case should not be dismissed 

for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. Should plaintiff wish to continue 

with this lawsuit, he shall file, within twenty-one days, an amended complaint or advisement of 

his intent to stand by his current complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 15, 2023 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-00554-TLN-JDP Document 27 Filed 09/15/23 Page 2 of 2