Justin v. SF State University
- Beth Freeman
- 5:25-cv-03492
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Malik M. Justin v. SF State University, Judge Hixson ordered Justin to explain by June 2 why the case should not be dismissed for inaction.
Malik M. Justin, whose case remained subject to a possible dismissal if he did not file the required declaration by June 2, 2025.
What happened
Malik M. Justin sued SF State University and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court found that his financial application contained unclear or conflicting answers and stated that it had denied the application.
The court also stated that Justin had not responded to a prior court order. Because he had not responded, the court ordered him to explain in a written declaration by June 2, 2025, why the case should not be dismissed for failing to pursue it and for missing court deadlines.
Judge Thomas S. Hixson issued the order to show cause. The court did not dismiss the case in this order, but warned that failing to submit a written response would be treated as an admission that Justin did not intend to continue the lawsuit and that the case would likely be dismissed.
The detailed version
- Justin v. SF State University · No. 5:25-cv-03492
- Beth Freeman
- May 19, 2025
Background
Malik M. Justin filed a complaint against SF State University and an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court stated that it could not determine from the application whether Justin qualified for that status. The court identified unclear or conflicting information about his past employment, income sources, work as a radio music artist, home ownership, bank account, bank balance, and monthly expenses. The court therefore stated that it had denied the application.
Failure to Respond
The court stated that Justin had failed to respond to a prior court order. It explained that a federal court has inherent authority—the power to manage its own cases—to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to pursue the lawsuit, or failure to comply with court deadlines.
Order
The court ordered Justin to show cause, meaning to explain, why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court deadlines. It ordered him to file a declaration by June 2, 2025. The court warned that failure to file a written response would be treated as an admission that he did not intend to prosecute the case and that the case would likely be dismissed. The order did not dismiss the case.
Disposition
The court issued an order to show cause and set a response deadline. It did not enter a dismissal in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.