(PC) Jacques v. Baker et al

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
MICHAEL E. JACQUES,
Plaintiff,
v.
D. BAKER, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 2:25-cv-0830-JDP
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
On September 15, 2025, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, to
revoke plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status. ECF No. 19. To date, plaintiff has not filed a
response.
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.
I will give plaintiff a chance to explain why the court should not dismiss the case for his
failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion. Plaintiff’s

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
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 local rules. Should plaintiff wish to continue with this lawsuit, he shall
file, within twenty-one days, an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 30, 2025
JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE