L.R. v. Mueller
- Kang
- 3:23-cv-03421
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In L.R. v. Mueller, Judge Kang ordered the self-represented plaintiff to amend the complaint or explain by September 18, 2025, why the case should not be dismissed.
L.R., the self-represented plaintiff, must either file a corrected amended complaint or explain why the action should not be dismissed by September 18, 2025.
What happened
In L.R. v. Mueller, L.R., who is representing themself, had filed a complaint and an application to proceed without paying filing fees. The court had granted that application and later dismissed the complaint without prejudice as frivolous and for failing to state a claim, while allowing L.R. to file an amended complaint by August 1, 2025.
That deadline passed without an amended complaint or a request for more time. The court issued an order requiring L.R. to either file an amended complaint addressing the earlier deficiencies or submit a written explanation for why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with court orders.
Judge Peter H. Kang set September 18, 2025, as the deadline and warned that failing to respond could lead to adverse consequences, including dismissal. This order did not itself dismiss the action; it required a response and directed the Clerk to mail the order to L.R.
The detailed version
- L.R. v. Mueller · No. 3:23-cv-03421
- Kang
- Aug. 18, 2025
Background
L.R. filed an initial complaint on July 7, 2023, and applied to proceed without paying filing fees. The court granted that application on May 13, 2024, and conducted the required screening of the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
On June 9, 2025, the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, finding it frivolous and insufficient to state a claim for relief. The court gave L.R. until August 1, 2025, to file an amended complaint correcting the pleading deficiencies.
The August 1 deadline passed by more than two weeks. The opinion states that L.R. had not filed an amended complaint and had not requested an extension of time. A footnote says the lawsuit may involve review of an adverse decision concerning Social Security benefits, but the order does not make a ruling on that issue.
Order to Show Cause
An order to show cause requires a party to explain why the court should not take a specified action. The court warned that failing to prosecute the case or comply with court orders could result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
The court ordered L.R., by September 18, 2025, to do one of two things: (1) file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in the June 9 order, or (2) file a written response explaining why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with the court’s directives. If L.R. filed a qualifying amended complaint by that deadline, it would count as the response to the order to show cause, and no separate response would be required.
If L.R. needed more time, the court required the written response to explain why additional time was needed and how much time was requested.
Disposition
The court issued an order to show cause and did not dismiss the action in this order. It warned that failure to respond by September 18, 2025, could lead to adverse consequences, including dismissal, and stated that the action would be reassigned to a District Judge with a recommendation. The provided opinion text cuts off before stating the remainder of that recommendation. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to L.R.’s address of record.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.