Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled July 16, 2024

Justin v. Real Option for City Kids

Judge
Martinez-Olguin
Docket
3:24-cv-03387
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Malik M. Justin v. Real Option for City Kids, Judge Martinez-Olguin ordered Justin to explain why his case should not be dismissed.

Who this affects

Malik M. Justin, whose case faced possible dismissal unless he responded to the court’s order and addressed the unpaid filing fee.

What happened

In Malik M. Justin v. Real Option for City Kids, the court had previously denied Malik M. Justin’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee. It gave him until July 8, 2024, to submit a renewed request or pay the fee.

Justin did neither by the deadline. The court therefore ordered him to explain by July 31, 2024, why the case should not be dismissed for failing to pursue it and follow court orders.

Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin did not dismiss the case in this order. She warned that if Justin did not respond by July 31, the court would dismiss the case without prejudice.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Justin v. Real Option for City Kids · No. 3:24-cv-03387
Judge
Martinez-Olguin
Date
July 16, 2024

Background

On June 6, 2024, the court denied Malik M. Justin’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court ordered Justin to either file a renewed application or pay the filing fee by July 8, 2024, and warned that failing to do so could lead to dismissal.

The July 8 deadline passed, and Justin had not filed a renewed application or paid the filing fee.

Order

The court issued an order requiring Justin to show cause, meaning to explain, why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders. Justin had until July 31, 2024, to file a written response.

Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin stated that if Justin failed to respond by that deadline, the court would dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders. The order itself did not dismiss the action.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.