Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 23, 2025

Carey v. Torres

Judge
Jeffrey White
Docket
4:24-cv-07354
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Carey v. Torres, Judge Hixson ordered Carey to explain why the case should not be dismissed after she missed a filing deadline.

Who this affects

Cecilia Carey must respond by February 6, 2025, or the case will likely be dismissed. The order does not impose a stated requirement on Mauricio Torres.

What happened

In Cecilia Carey v. Mauricio Torres, the court had previously found Carey’s amended complaint deficient under the statute governing initial screening of certain cases filed without the required filing fee. It ordered her to file another amended complaint by January 17, 2025.

Carey did not file another complaint or otherwise respond by that deadline. The court therefore ordered her to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failing to pursue it and for failing to meet court deadlines.

Carey must file a written declaration by February 6, 2025. The order states that failing to respond will be treated as an admission that she does not intend to pursue the case and that the case will likely be dismissed. United States Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson signed the order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Carey v. Torres · No. 4:24-cv-07354
Judge
Jeffrey White
Date
Jan. 23, 2025

Background

The court screened Cecilia Carey’s First Amended Complaint on December 20, 2024, and found it deficient under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), which governs screening in certain cases filed without the required filing fee. The court directed Carey to file a second amended complaint by January 17, 2025, and warned that failure to do so would likely lead to reassignment to a district judge with a recommendation that the case be dismissed.

Order

Carey did not file an amended complaint or otherwise respond. The court relied on its authority to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with court deadlines, but it did not dismiss the case in this order. Instead, it ordered Carey to show cause—meaning to explain—why the case should not be dismissed.

Carey must file a declaration by February 6, 2025. The order states that failing to submit a written response will be treated as an admission that she does not intend to pursue the case and that the case will likely be dismissed.

Disposition

The court issued an order to show cause. It did not enter a dismissal. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson.

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.