Straw v. Facebook
- 3:24-cv-08625
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Andrew U.D. Straw v. Facebook, the court ordered Straw to respond by November 14, 2025, or risk a dismissal recommendation.
Andrew U.D. Straw, the self-represented plaintiff, must respond by November 14, 2025, or face a recommendation that the action be dismissed with prejudice; Facebook is the defendant affected by the case's possible continuation or dismissal.
What happened
In Andrew U.D. Straw v. Facebook, Andrew U.D. Straw, who is representing himself, missed the deadline to file an amended complaint after the court dismissed his original complaint without prejudice during required screening.
The court ordered Straw to do one of three things by November 14, 2025: file an amended complaint, request a reasonable extension in writing, or explain why the case should not be dismissed for failing to prosecute or follow court orders.
The court, which did not identify the magistrate judge by name in the opinion text, warned that failing to respond could lead to a recommendation that the case be dismissed with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Straw v. Facebook · No. 3:24-cv-08625
- Oct. 15, 2025
Background
Andrew U.D. Straw, an attorney representing himself, filed the complaint with an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court granted that application and screened the complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). On September 8, 2025, the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim for relief. The court gave Straw until October 8, 2025, to file an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies.
The October 8 deadline passed, and Straw had not filed an amended complaint or requested an extension. The court noted that its earlier order warned that failure to file an amended complaint, or inability to cure the deficiencies, could result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed with prejudice.
Order to Show Cause
The court explained that it has authority under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute it or fails to comply with court orders. The court warned that failing to comply with the new order could lead to a recommendation that this action be dismissed with prejudice.
By November 14, 2025, Straw was ordered to do one of the following: (1) file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in the September 8 order; (2) file a written request for a reasonable extension that explains why an extension is warranted and how much additional time is needed; or (3) file a written response explaining why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with court orders.
Disposition
The court issued an order to show cause; it did not dismiss the action in this opinion. The court stated that if Straw failed to respond in one of the directed ways by November 14, 2025, it would issue a report and recommendation that the action be dismissed with prejudice and direct reassignment to a district judge to consider and act on that recommendation. The opinion text does not identify the magistrate judge by name.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.