Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 22, 2025

Iliya v. United States Marshalls Service

Judge
Thomas Hixson
Docket
3:24-cv-03720
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Dauda Iliya v. United States Marshals Service, Judge Hixson ordered Iliya to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failing to proceed.

Who this affects

Dauda Iliya, who was ordered to explain why his case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to meet court deadlines.

What happened

In Dauda Iliya v. United States Marshals Service, the court had previously granted the United States Marshals Service’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The court allowed Dauda Iliya to amend his complaint by January 21, 2025, but he did not respond.

The court ordered Iliya to show cause, meaning to explain, why the case should not be dismissed for failing to prosecute it and for missing court deadlines. It required him to file a declaration by February 5, 2025.

Judge Thomas S. Hixson warned that failing to provide a written response would be treated as an admission that Iliya did not intend to continue the case and that the case would likely be dismissed. The order did not itself dismiss the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Iliya v. United States Marshalls Service · No. 3:24-cv-03720
Judge
Thomas Hixson
Date
Jan. 22, 2025

Background

On December 20, 2024, the court granted the United States Marshals Service’s motion to dismiss. The motion asserted that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and that Iliya had failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted under Rule 12(b)(6). The court gave Iliya permission to amend by January 21, 2025, but the opinion says he did not respond.

Order to Show Cause

The court ordered Iliya to show cause—provide an explanation—why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court deadlines. The court required Iliya to file a declaration by February 5, 2025.

Warning and disposition

The court warned that not filing a written response would be treated as an admission that Iliya did not intend to prosecute the case and that the case would likely be dismissed. Judge Thomas S. Hixson did not dismiss the case in this order; he issued a second order to show cause.

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.