Justin v. Baron
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:25-cv-03482
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Justin v. Baron, Judge DeMarchi ordered Justin to explain why his case should not be dismissed for missing a court-ordered deadline.
Malik M. Justin must respond by July 2, 2025, or the court may reassign the case and recommend dismissal without prejudice. The order does not impose a ruling or obligation on Joe Brenton Baron.
What happened
In Malik M. Justin v. Joe Brenton Baron, the court had previously screened Justin’s complaint, paused service of the lawsuit, and ordered him to file an amended complaint by June 5, 2025.
That deadline passed, and the docket showed that Justin had filed neither an amended complaint nor a request for more time. The court therefore ordered him to explain by July 2, 2025, why the case should not be dismissed for failing to pursue it and comply with court orders.
Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi did not dismiss the case in this order. She warned that if Justin did not respond by July 2, the court would reassign the case to a district judge with a recommendation that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Justin v. Baron · No. 4:25-cv-03482
- Yvonne Rogers
- June 11, 2025
Background
On May 5, 2025, the court screened Malik M. Justin’s complaint, stayed service of process, and directed him to file an amended complaint by June 5, 2025. The earlier order warned that failure to file a timely amended complaint, or failure to correct the identified problems, could lead to reassignment to a district judge with a recommendation that the complaint be dismissed in whole or in part.
Failure to Meet Deadline
The June 5 deadline passed. According to the docket, Justin had not filed an amended complaint or asked for an extension of time.
Order
The court issued an order to show cause, meaning an order requiring Justin to explain why the case should not be dismissed. It directed him to file a written response by July 2, 2025, explaining why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute—that is, failure to pursue the case—and failure to comply with court-ordered deadlines.
Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi did not dismiss the case in this order. The order states that if Justin failed to respond by July 2, 2025, the court would reassign the action to a district judge with a recommendation that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and/or failure to follow court orders.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.