Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01872/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01872-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 465
Nature of Suit: Other Immigration Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

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 

MANDEEP SINGH, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UR M. JADDOU, et al, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:24-cv-01872 DJC AC 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action in pro se and paid the filing fee. ECF No. 1. The 

action was accordingly referred to the undersigned for pretrial matters by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local 

Rule”) 302(c)(21). On August 14, 2024, defendants filed a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 7), set to 

be heard on the papers on October 9, 2024. ECF No. 10. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), plaintiff 

was required to file an opposition or notice of non-opposition within 14 days of the motion being 

filed. In this case, the deadline was August 28, 2024. Plaintiff did not file an opposition or 

statement of non-opposition. 

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff shall show cause, in 

writing, within 14 days, why the failure to respond to the pending motion should not result in a 

recommendation that this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The filing of an opposition 

or statement of non-opposition within this timeframe will serve as cause and will discharge this 

//// 

Case 2:24-cv-01872-DJC-AC Document 12 Filed 10/16/24 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 

order. If plaintiff fails to respond, the undersigned will recommend that this case be dismissed for 

failure to prosecute pursuant to Local Rule 110. 

IT IS SO ORDRED. 

DATED: October 15, 2024 

Case 2:24-cv-01872-DJC-AC Document 12 Filed 10/16/24 Page 2 of 2