Boyd v. Miller
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:25-cv-05145
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Anthony Boyd v. J. Miller, Judge DeMarchi recommended dismissal without prejudice because Boyd did not serve defendants or follow court orders.
Anthony Boyd’s lawsuit was affected. The court recommended dismissing his complaint without prejudice; the opinion does not state that a district judge had yet entered the dismissal.
What happened
Anthony Boyd, representing himself, sued named and unnamed San Jose Police Department officers. The court said he did not complete service of the lawsuit or file required updates about his efforts to do so.
The court had warned Boyd about the service deadline, extended that deadline, and ordered him to file proof of service and a status report. He did not meet the extended deadline, request another extension, or respond to the court’s orders.
The court ordered reassignment to a district judge and recommended dismissing the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to follow court orders. Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi issued the report and recommendation, and the opinion says parties could file objections within 14 days.
The detailed version
- Boyd v. Miller · No. 5:25-cv-05145
- Virginia Demarchi
- Oct. 24, 2025
Background
Anthony Boyd filed a civil-rights lawsuit against several named officers of the San Jose Police Department and eleven unnamed officers. He was representing himself and had paid the filing fee, so the court did not conduct the initial screening required for certain unpaid-fee cases.
Service and Court Orders
The court observed on August 18, 2025, that Boyd had not submitted a proposed summons for issuance and that no defendant had appeared, waived service, or otherwise been properly served. The court identified September 16, 2025, as the deadline for completing service and directed Boyd to file a status report or timely seek an extension for good cause.
On September 22, 2025, the court noted that Boyd had not filed the required status report. Although the Clerk had issued his proposed summons on September 16, the docket showed no further activity suggesting that defendants had been served. The court extended the service deadline to October 16, 2025, ordered Boyd to file proofs of service after serving the defendants, and again required a report about his efforts.
Ruling
The October 16 deadline passed without Boyd filing proofs of service or a status report. He also did not timely request another extension or respond to the August 18 and September 22 orders. Because not all parties had consented to the magistrate judge’s authority to enter a final judgment, Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi ordered the case reassigned to a district judge and recommended that Boyd’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders.
The opinion states that any party could file objections to the report and recommendation within 14 days after being served. It does not state whether a district judge later adopted the recommendation.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.