Hughes v. San Francisco Unified School District
- Kang
- 3:25-cv-06299
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Auliya Hughes v. San Francisco Unified School District, Judge Kang ordered a response by January 9, 2026, warning of a possible dismissal.
Auliya Hughes, who was representing herself, must respond by January 9, 2026 or face a recommendation that her action be dismissed. The order also affects the pending action against San Francisco Unified School District and the other named defendants.
What happened
In Auliya Hughes v. San Francisco Unified School District, Auliya Hughes represented herself. The court had dismissed her original complaint without prejudice after screening it, finding that it did not state a claim for relief and sought money from defendants protected from such claims. Hughes was allowed to file an amended complaint by November 14, 2025, but did not do so or request more time.
The court ordered Hughes to act by January 9, 2026. She must either file an amended complaint, request a reasonable extension to file one, or explain in writing why the case should not be dismissed for failing to move the case forward or follow court orders. The court said that failing to respond in one of those ways would lead to a recommendation that the case be dismissed.
Judge Peter H. Kang issued this order to show cause, which warned Hughes about the consequences of inaction but did not itself dismiss the case. The order also directed the Clerk of Court to mail it to Hughes.
The detailed version
- Hughes v. San Francisco Unified School District · No. 3:25-cv-06299
- Kang
- Dec. 8, 2025
Background
Auliya Hughes filed a complaint and an application to proceed without paying filing fees. The court granted that application and screened the complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In an October 9, 2025 order, the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim for relief and for seeking monetary relief from defendants who were immune from that relief. The court gave Hughes permission to file an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies by November 14, 2025.
That deadline passed. The opinion states that Hughes had not filed an amended complaint and had not requested an extension of time.
Order to Show Cause
The court issued an order to show cause concerning failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. An order to show cause requires a party to explain why a specified consequence should not occur. The court warned that failing to follow its orders and failing to move the case forward could result in adverse consequences, including a recommendation that the action be dismissed.
The court set a new deadline of January 9, 2026. By that date, Hughes must do one of three things:
- File an amended complaint addressing and curing the deficiencies identified in the October 9 order;
- File a written request for a further reasonable extension of time to file such an amended complaint; or
- File a written response explaining why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with the court’s directives and orders.
The court stated that an amended complaint or a request for an extension filed by the deadline would count as a response to the order to show cause, so no additional written response would be required. If Hughes did not respond in one of those ways by January 9, 2026, the court said it would issue a report and recommendation that the action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders.
Disposition
Judge Peter H. Kang ordered Hughes to respond by January 9, 2026 and directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to her address of record. This order did not itself dismiss the action; it warned that a later recommendation for dismissal would follow if Hughes failed to respond as directed.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.