Rasheed v. United States Government Agent
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:25-cv-04096
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Rasheed v. United States Government Agent, Judge Hixson ordered a response explaining why the case should not be dismissed after Rasheed missed an amendment deadline.
Tahee A. Rasheed, whose case was placed under an order to show cause after the court found the complaint deficient and Rasheed missed the deadline to file an amended complaint.
What happened
Tahee A. Rasheed filed a complaint and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court granted that request but found the complaint deficient and ordered Rasheed to file an amended complaint by June 12, 2025. Rasheed did not respond.
The court ordered Rasheed to explain in a written declaration why the case should not be dismissed for failing to prosecute the case and follow court deadlines. The declaration is due July 3, 2025.
Judge Thomas S. Hixson warned that failing to submit a written response will be treated as an admission that Rasheed does not intend to continue the case, and that the case will likely be dismissed. The court did not dismiss the case in this order.
The detailed version
- Rasheed v. United States Government Agent · No. 3:25-cv-04096
- Thomas Hixson
- June 20, 2025
Background
Tahee A. Rasheed filed a complaint and an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. On May 19, 2025, the court granted the application but found the complaint deficient under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court directed Rasheed to file a first amended complaint addressing the deficiencies identified in the screening order by June 12, 2025.
The court warned that if Rasheed did not correct the deficiencies, the case would likely be reassigned to a district judge with a recommendation for dismissal. Rasheed did not respond.
Order
The court ordered Rasheed to show cause—that is, to explain—why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court deadlines. Rasheed must file a declaration by July 3, 2025.
The order states that failing to file a written response will be treated as an admission that Rasheed does not intend to prosecute the case, and that the case will likely be dismissed. This order did not itself dismiss the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.