Justin v. Harris-Dupart
- Cisneros
- 5:25-cv-03714
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Justin v. Harris-Dupart, Magistrate Judge Cisneros recommended dismissing the case without prejudice after Justin failed to answer a court order.
Pro se plaintiff Malik M. Justin, whose case was recommended for dismissal without prejudice; the opinion does not state that the recommendation had become a final dismissal.
What happened
In Malik M. Justin v. Shawntae Harris-Dupart, the magistrate judge considered Justin’s failure to respond to a court order about his request to proceed without paying filing fees and his complaint.
The order gave Justin until May 21, 2025, to respond and warned that the case could be dismissed if he did not. Justin filed no response by the deadline.
Magistrate Judge A. J. Cisneros recommended dismissing the case without prejudice for failing to pursue it and failing to follow a court order, and also for failing to state a claim. The recommendation was not yet a final dismissal, and Justin could object within 14 days after receiving it.
The detailed version
- Justin v. Harris-Dupart · No. 5:25-cv-03714
- Cisneros
- June 2, 2025
Background
On April 30, 2025, Magistrate Judge A. J. Cisneros ordered pro se plaintiff Malik M. Justin to explain why his application to proceed without paying filing fees should not be denied. The order also directed Justin to address why his complaint should not be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) if he could establish eligibility to proceed without paying fees. It set a May 21, 2025 deadline and warned that failing to respond could lead to a recommendation of dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Justin did not respond by the deadline.
Recommendation
The magistrate judge recommended that the case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order. The recommendation also cited failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, meaning that the complaint did not adequately allege a legal claim for which the court could provide relief, as discussed in the earlier order to show cause.
The court stated that it did not need to decide the defects in Justin’s application to proceed without paying filing fees. Because not all parties had appeared and consented to a magistrate judge’s jurisdiction, the recommendation would be subject to further proceedings, including action on the recommendation. Justin could file an objection no later than 14 days after being served with the report.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.