Iliya v. United States Marshalls Service
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:24-cv-03720
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Dauda Iliya v. United States Marshals Service, Judge Hixson ordered a response explaining missed deadlines before deciding whether to dismiss the case.
Dauda Iliya was required to respond to the court’s order by October 11, 2024. The United States Marshals Service could file a reply by October 18, 2024 if Iliya filed an opposition.
What happened
Dauda Iliya v. United States Marshals Service involves the Marshals Service’s motion to dismiss. Iliya did not file a timely opposition under the court’s local rules.
The court canceled the scheduled October 17, 2024 hearing and ordered Iliya to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failing to pursue it and for missing court deadlines. The court required a declaration and either a proper opposition or a statement that he did not oppose the motion by October 11, 2024.
Judge Hixson warned that failing to respond in writing would be treated as an admission that Iliya did not intend to pursue the case and that the case would likely be dismissed. The order did not itself dismiss the case or decide the motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Iliya v. United States Marshalls Service · No. 3:24-cv-03720
- Thomas Hixson
- Sept. 27, 2024
Background
The United States Marshals Service filed a motion to dismiss. The opinion states that Dauda Iliya failed to file an opposition that complied with Civil Local Rule 7-3.
Order to Show Cause
The court exercised its authority to dismiss an action on its own initiative to promote the orderly and expeditious handling of cases. It vacated the October 17, 2024 hearing date and ordered Iliya to show cause—meaning to explain—why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court deadlines.
Iliya was ordered to file a declaration by October 11, 2024, and at the same time to file either an opposition complying with Civil Local Rule 7-3(a) or a statement of nonopposition complying with Rule 7-3(b). If Iliya filed an opposition, the Marshals Service could file a reply by October 18, 2024.
Disposition
The court issued an order to show cause; it did not dismiss the case in this order and did not rule on the Marshals Service’s motion to dismiss. The court warned that failing to submit a written response by the deadline would be treated as an admission that Iliya did not intend to prosecute the case and that the case would likely be dismissed.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.