Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 4, 2025

Lacy v. Social Security Administration

Judge
Alex Tse
Docket
4:25-cv-06256
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Lacy v. Social Security Administration, Judge Tse recommended dismissing the complaint without leave to amend and denied two pending motions.

Who this affects

Plaintiffs Edward Dwayne Lacy and Xavier Dwayne Lacy, whose complaint was recommended for dismissal and whose two pending motions were denied.

What happened

In Edward Dwayne Lacy, et al. v. Social Security Administration, et al., the plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint by the deadline set in an earlier screening order.

The magistrate judge recommended that the district judge dismiss the complaint without leave to amend for failure to state a claim. The judge also denied the plaintiffs’ request for more time to serve the defendants and denied their motion alleging indirect contempt.

Judge Alex G. Tse recommended dismissal and requested reassignment of the case to a district judge. The plaintiffs may object within 14 days after receiving the recommendation; the opinion does not state that a district judge had adopted it.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Lacy v. Social Security Administration · No. 4:25-cv-06256
Judge
Alex Tse
Date
Nov. 4, 2025

Background

Plaintiffs Edward Dwayne Lacy and Xavier Dwayne Lacy had not filed an amended complaint, and the deadline to do so had passed. Referring to the reasons given in an earlier screening order, Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse requested that the Clerk reassign the case to a district judge and recommended that the district judge dismiss the complaint without leave to amend for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Pending Motions

The plaintiffs requested an extension of time to serve the defendants. The court denied that request because it was recommending dismissal. The plaintiffs also filed a motion for indirect contempt of a court order. The court denied that motion because the defendants had not been served when the motion was filed and therefore had not failed to comply with the court’s order.

Recommendation and Further Proceedings

The report and recommendation recommends dismissal and does not itself state that the complaint was dismissed. The plaintiffs may object within 14 days after receiving a copy of the recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). The opinion does not state whether a district judge later adopted the recommendation.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.