Lovell v. Maynard
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:25-cv-05619
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In David Lovell v. Maynard, Judge Hixson ordered Lovell to explain by November 20 why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
The order directly affects David Lovell by requiring him to explain by November 20, 2025, why his case should not be dismissed. It also affects the status of his case, which remains pending unless the court later dismisses it.
What happened
In David Lovell v. Maynard, the U.S. Marshals Service could not serve Deputy Maynard because the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office said he was no longer an employee. The court ordered David Lovell to provide an address for service, but he missed the original and extended deadlines.
The court had not dismissed the case. Instead, it ordered Lovell to file a written declaration by November 20, 2025, explaining why the case should not be dismissed for failing to pursue it and for failing to meet court deadlines. The order warned that not responding would be treated as an admission that he did not intend to continue the case and that the case would likely be dismissed.
Judge Thomas S. Hixson issued the order on November 6, 2025. The order also referred Lovell to free legal-help resources and a handbook for people proceeding without a lawyer.
The detailed version
- Lovell v. Maynard · No. 3:25-cv-05619
- Thomas Hixson
- Nov. 6, 2025
Background
On July 11, 2025, the court granted David Lovell permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, directed the Clerk of Court to issue a summons, and directed the U.S. Marshal to serve Maynard. The Marshal returned the summons unexecuted on August 21, stating that the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office advised that Deputy Maynard was no longer an employee.
The court then ordered Lovell to provide an address where Maynard could be served by October 17, 2025. After Lovell did not respond, the court extended the deadline to October 30 and warned that the case could be dismissed for failure to prosecute if he did not provide the address. Lovell still did not respond.
Order
The court invoked its inherent power to dismiss an action to achieve the orderly and efficient handling of cases. It ordered Lovell to show cause—meaning to explain—why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court deadlines.
Lovell must file a declaration by November 20, 2025. The order states that failing to file a written response will be treated as an admission that he does not intend to prosecute the case and that the case will likely be dismissed. The order itself does not dismiss the case.
Additional information
The court encouraged Lovell to seek basic legal help from the Federal Pro Bono Project and referred him to the district’s handbook for litigants without a lawyer.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.