Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled May 28, 2025

Justin v. Michele

Judge
Thomas Hixson
Docket
3:25-cv-03505
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Justin v. Michele, Judge Hixson ordered Justin to explain by June 11 why the case should not be dismissed after he missed a filing deadline.

Who this affects

Malik M. Justin is required to file a written declaration by June 11, 2025, or the case will likely be dismissed. Draya Michele is the defendant in the case.

What happened

In Malik M. Justin v. Draya Michele, the court had allowed Justin to proceed without prepaying filing fees, reviewed his complaint, and ordered him to file an amended complaint by May 22, 2025. The court warned that failing to fix the identified problems could lead to reassignment and a recommendation to dismiss the case.

Justin did not respond or file the required amended complaint. The court therefore ordered him to explain in a written declaration by June 11, 2025, why the case should not be dismissed for failing to pursue it and failing to meet court deadlines. The court has not dismissed the case in this order.

Judge Thomas S. Hixson issued the order to show cause. The order warns that failing to submit a written response will be treated as an admission that Justin does not intend to continue the case and that dismissal will likely follow.

The detailed version

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

Case
Justin v. Michele · No. 3:25-cv-03505
Judge
Thomas Hixson
Date
May 28, 2025

Background

On April 23, 2025, the court granted Malik M. Justin’s application to proceed without prepaying filing fees and screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a law requiring courts to review certain complaints filed by people proceeding without prepaying fees. The court directed Justin to file a first amended complaint by May 22, 2025, and warned that failing to correct the problems identified in the screening order could result in reassignment to a district judge with a recommendation that the case be dismissed.

Failure to Respond

Justin did not respond to the court’s order. The opinion does not describe the specific problems identified in the earlier screening order.

Order to Show Cause

The court stated that it has the power to dismiss an action on its own to ensure the orderly and prompt handling of cases. It ordered Justin to show cause—meaning to explain—why the case should not be dismissed for failing to pursue the case and failing to meet court deadlines. Justin must file a declaration by June 11, 2025. The order warns that failing to file a written response will be treated as an admission that he does not intend to continue prosecuting the case and that the case will likely be dismissed.

This order does not dismiss the case. It requires a response before the court decides whether dismissal is warranted.

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.