Justin v. Real Options for City Kids
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-03309
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Malik M. Justin v. Real Options for City Kids, Judge Martinez-Olguin ordered a response and amended complaint, warning dismissal could follow for noncompliance.
Malik M. Justin was required to respond and file amended complaints by September 2, 2024, or face dismissal without prejudice. The order addressed his three cases against the named defendants.
What happened
In Malik M. Justin v. Real Options for City Kids and two other cases, the court said Justin had not filed amended complaints by the July 12, 2024 deadline set in earlier orders.
The court ordered Justin to explain by September 2, 2024, why the cases should not be dismissed for failing to pursue them and follow court orders. It also required him to file amended complaints by that date if he wanted to continue.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin stated that the court would dismiss the action without prejudice if Justin did not respond by the deadline. This order did not itself dismiss the cases.
The detailed version
- Justin v. Real Options for City Kids · No. 3:24-cv-03309
- Martinez-Olguin
- Aug. 19, 2024
Background
The order addresses three cases brought by Malik M. Justin. In orders issued June 21, 2024, the court allowed Justin to proceed without paying the filing fee, screened his complaints under a federal statute, and ordered him to file amended complaints by July 12, 2024. The court stated that the deadline had passed and that Justin had not filed the amended complaints.
Order to Show Cause
The court ordered Justin to file a written response by September 2, 2024, explaining why the action should not be dismissed for failing to pursue the case and comply with court orders. If he wanted to continue with the case, he also had to file an amended complaint by that deadline.
Potential Disposition
The court stated that if Justin failed to respond by September 2, 2024, it would dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders. The August 19 order itself was an order requiring a response; it did not dismiss the cases.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it concerns compliance with court requirements and a possible dismissal for failure to prosecute, without deciding the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.