Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 25, 2025

Carey v. Torres

Judge
Jeffrey White
Docket
4:24-cv-09534
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Carey v. Torres, Judge Hixson ordered the plaintiffs to explain why their case should not be dismissed for missed deadlines and failure to pursue it.

Who this affects

Plaintiffs Cecilia Carey and Karren Moorer were required to file a written declaration by March 11, 2025, or risk dismissal of the case. The order did not impose a ruling on the defendants.

What happened

Cecilia Carey and Karren Moorer filed this lawsuit and applications to proceed without paying filing fees. The court approved those applications but found their complaint legally deficient and ordered them to file an amended complaint by February 24, 2025.

The plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint or otherwise respond after filing the case. The court therefore ordered them to explain in a written declaration why the case should not be dismissed for failing to pursue it and failing to follow court deadlines.

Judge Thomas S. Hixson set March 11, 2025, as the deadline for the declaration. The court did not dismiss the case in this order, but warned that failing to respond would likely lead to dismissal.

The detailed version

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

Case
Carey v. Torres · No. 4:24-cv-09534
Judge
Jeffrey White
Date
Feb. 25, 2025

Background

Cecilia Carey and Karren Moorer filed this lawsuit on December 31, 2024, along with applications to proceed without paying filing fees. On January 23, 2025, the court granted those applications but found that the complaint was deficient under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court ordered the plaintiffs to file a first amended complaint by February 24, 2025, and warned that failing to correct the problems could lead to reassignment to a district judge with a recommendation for dismissal.

Order to Show Cause

The court stated that it had authority to dismiss a case on its own to manage cases efficiently. Because the plaintiffs had not filed the amended complaint, had not responded, and had otherwise made no appearance since filing the complaint, the court ordered them to show cause—that is, explain—why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court deadlines.

Disposition

The court ordered Carey and Moorer to file a declaration by March 11, 2025. It warned that failing to submit a written response would be treated as an admission that they did not intend to pursue the case and that the case would likely be dismissed. This order itself did not dismiss the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.