Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00070/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00070-3/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

RICHARD A. EVANS,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. MILAM, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00070-AWI-JDP

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS 

CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE, FAILURE TO 

STATE A CLAIM, AND FAILURE TO 

COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER

FORTY-FIVE DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Richard Evans is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights 

action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint was screened on April 6, 2020, 

and plaintiff was ordered to file a first amended complaint within sixty days. See ECF No. 15. 

However, while plaintiff has filed numerous assorted materials, see ECF Nos. 16-25, he is yet 

to file a first amended complaint.

To manage our docket effectively, we impose deadlines and require litigants to meet 

those deadlines. When a plaintiff fails to comply with court-imposed deadlines, the court may 

dismiss the plaintiff’s case for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41; Hells Canyon Pres. 

Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he consensus among our 

sister circuits, with which we agree, is that courts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at 

least under certain circumstances.”). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but the court has 

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

Case 1:20-cv-00070-AWI-HBK Document 26 Filed 06/15/20 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

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

We will give plaintiff the opportunity to explain why the court should not dismiss his

case for failure to prosecute and failure to state a claim. The court observes that one of 

plaintiff’s numerous “notices” mentions a need for more time, see ECF No. 21, but that notice 

appears to have been filed in numerous cases simultaneously and is concerned with needing 

more time for an appeal issue; it does not refer to the first amended complaint at issue here. 

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

court order and will result in dismissal of this case. Accordingly, plaintiff must show cause 

within forty-five days of the date of entry of this order why the court should not dismiss his

case for failure to state a claim and failure to prosecute. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 15, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 205.

Case 1:20-cv-00070-AWI-HBK Document 26 Filed 06/15/20 Page 2 of 2