Brooks v. Rassmusen
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:24-cv-04279
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Brooks v. Rassmusen, Judge DeMarchi ordered Brooks to explain why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice.
Molly Elizabeth Brooks, whose case could be dismissed without prejudice if she did not respond and address the filing-fee problem.
What happened
In Brooks v. Rassmusen, Molly Elizabeth Brooks filed the action, but her filing-fee payment was for the wrong amount and was returned. The Clerk then told her to pay the correct fee or apply to proceed without paying it by August 26, 2024.
The docket showed that Brooks had done neither by the time of the order. The court therefore ordered her to submit a written response explaining why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi set September 13, 2024, as the deadline for Brooks’s response. The order did not itself dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Brooks v. Rassmusen · No. 5:24-cv-04279
- Virginia Demarchi
- Aug. 30, 2024
Background
Molly Elizabeth Brooks filed this action on July 17, 2024. She submitted a filing-fee payment in the wrong amount, so the Clerk returned her check. The Clerk instructed Brooks to pay the correct filing fee or submit an application to proceed without paying the fee by August 26, 2024. The docket showed that she had done neither.
Order
The court explained that it has authority to dismiss an action on its own when necessary for the orderly and timely handling of cases. Instead of dismissing the action at that point, the court issued an order to show cause, meaning it required Brooks to explain why dismissal should not occur.
The court ordered Brooks to file a written response by September 13, 2024, explaining why the action should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The opinion did not state that Brooks had filed a response or that the case had been dismissed.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.