Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00071/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00071-3/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

DOMINIC MILANO,

Plaintiff,

v.

DUNCAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:22-cv-00071-KJM-JDP (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS 

CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE 

TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL RULES

RESPONSE DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE 

DAYS

On December 29, 2022, defendants filed a motion to stay. ECF No. 23. Plaintiff has not 

filed a response. 

In cases in which a party is incarcerated and proceeding without counsel, a responding 

party is required to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition not more twenty-one days 

after the date the motion is served. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(l). Failure “to file an opposition or to file 

a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the 

motion and may result in the imposition of sanctions.” Id.

To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet certain deadlines. 

The court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of a case, for failure to comply with court 

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 

Case 2:22-cv-00071-JDP Document 24 Filed 03/03/23 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

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.

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

his failure to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion. 

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 for failure to comply with the court’s local rules. Should plaintiff wish to continue with this 

lawsuit, he shall, within twenty-one days, file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to 

defendants’ motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2023 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-00071-JDP Document 24 Filed 03/03/23 Page 2 of 2