Lovell v. Macomber
- Kang
- 3:25-cv-05787
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In David Lovell v. Jeffery Macomber, Magistrate Judge Kang ordered Lovell to explain his failure to comply or face a dismissal recommendation.
David Lovell, the self-represented plaintiff, must respond by November 21, 2025 or face a recommendation that the action be dismissed and reassigned to a district judge.
What happened
In David Lovell v. Jeffery Macomber, David Lovell filed a complaint while representing himself and asked to avoid paying the filing fee. The court denied that request because he had not provided enough information about his assets and liabilities, but allowed him to submit a corrected application by October 3, 2025.
That deadline passed without Lovell filing a corrected application or asking for more time. The court therefore ordered him to respond by November 21, 2025 by filing a corrected fee-waiver application, paying the $405 filing fee, or explaining why the case should not be dismissed for failing to move it forward or follow court orders.
Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang issued an order requiring that response. The order did not dismiss the case; it warned that failing to respond could lead to a recommendation that the case be dismissed and reassigned to a district judge.
The detailed version
- Lovell v. Macomber · No. 3:25-cv-05787
- Kang
- Oct. 15, 2025
Background
David Lovell filed the complaint on July 9, 2025, while representing himself. He also filed an application to proceed without paying the filing fee, commonly called an in forma pauperis application. On August 28, 2025, the court denied that application because Lovell had not provided enough information about his assets and liabilities to determine whether he qualified. The court gave him until October 3, 2025, to file an amended application.
Lovell did not file an amended application by that deadline and did not request an extension. The court’s earlier order had warned that failing to file the amended application or pay the filing fee could result in a recommendation that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with court orders.
Order to Show Cause
The court issued an order to show cause, meaning an order requiring Lovell to explain why the case should not be dismissed. The court stated 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 follow court orders. The order also acknowledged that Lovell was representing himself but warned that failing to comply would have adverse consequences for the lawsuit.
By November 21, 2025, Lovell was required to do one of three things: (1) file an amended fee-waiver application addressing the deficiencies identified in the earlier order; (2) pay the $405 filing fee; or (3) file a written explanation of why the case should not be dismissed. If Lovell needed more time, he had to explain by that deadline why he needed it and how much additional time he sought. The court stated that a failure to respond would lead to a report and recommendation that the action be dismissed and an order reassigning the case to a district judge for consideration.
Disposition
Judge Peter H. Kang issued an order to show cause and set the November 21, 2025 deadline. The opinion did not dismiss the action. It directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Lovell at his address of record.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.