F.C. v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Kang
- 3:25-cv-08053
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In F.C. v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Kang ordered a response by January 9, 2026, warning that noncompliance could lead to a dismissal recommendation.
F.C., whose application to proceed without paying the filing fee was previously denied and who was ordered to file an amended application or explain why the case should not be dismissed.
What happened
F.C. v. Commissioner of Social Security began when F.C. filed a complaint and an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court denied that application because F.C. had not provided enough information about assets and liabilities, and allowed an amended application by November 21, 2025.
That deadline passed without an amended application or a request for more time. The court ordered F.C. by January 9, 2026, either to file an amended application addressing the deficiencies or to explain in writing why the case should not be dismissed for failing to pursue it or follow court orders.
Judge Peter H. Kang warned that failing to respond could lead to a recommendation that the case be dismissed and reassigned to a district judge. The order did not itself dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- F.C. v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 3:25-cv-08053
- Kang
- Dec. 8, 2025
Background
F.C. filed the complaint on September 22, 2025, together with an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. On October 10, 2025, the court denied the application because F.C. had not provided enough information about assets and liabilities for the court to determine eligibility. The court allowed F.C. to file an amended application by November 21, 2025.
The deadline passed by approximately two weeks. The opinion states that F.C. had not filed an amended application and had not requested an extension of time.
Order to Show Cause
The court issued an order requiring F.C. to respond by January 9, 2026. F.C. must either file an amended application that addresses the deficiencies identified in the October 10 order or file a written response explaining why the action should not be dismissed for failure to pursue the case or comply with court orders. If the amended application cures the identified deficiencies, it will count as the response to the order, and no separate written response will be required. Any request for more time must explain why more time is needed and how much time is requested.
Potential Consequence
The court warned that failing to respond by January 9, 2026, would lead to a report and recommendation that the action be dismissed. The matter would then be reassigned to a district judge for consideration and any action on that recommendation. The court did not dismiss the action in this order.
Disposition
Judge Peter H. Kang issued an order to show cause concerning failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order. This was not a final dismissal or a decision on the underlying Social Security dispute.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.