Cole v. Fairfax Inova Hospital
- Kang
- 4:25-cv-06810
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Abdul Rahman Cole v. Fairfax Inova Hospital, Judge Kang ordered Cole to respond by January 16, 2026, or risk a dismissal recommendation.
Abdul Rahman Cole, who is representing himself, and the continuation of his lawsuit against Fairfax Inova Hospital.
What happened
In Abdul Rahman Cole v. Fairfax Inova Hospital, Abdul Rahman Cole, who is representing himself, did not file a corrected application to waive the filing fee after the court denied his first application. He also did not pay the filing fee or request more time.
The court ordered Cole to do one of three things by January 16, 2026: file a corrected fee-waiver application, pay the $405 filing fee, or explain in writing why the case should not be dismissed for failing to move it forward or follow court orders. The court has not dismissed the case in this order.
Judge Peter H. Kang warned that failing to respond could lead to a recommendation that the case be dismissed and reassignment to a district judge for further action.
The detailed version
- Cole v. Fairfax Inova Hospital · No. 4:25-cv-06810
- Kang
- Dec. 12, 2025
Background
Abdul Rahman Cole filed a complaint and an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court denied that application on November 5, 2025, because Cole had not provided sufficiently consistent and detailed information about his assets and liabilities. The court allowed him to file a corrected application by December 5, 2025.
The December 5 deadline passed without Cole filing a corrected application, paying the filing fee, or requesting an extension of time. Cole is representing himself in the action.
Order to Show Cause
The court issued an order to show cause, meaning an order requiring Cole to explain why the case should not be dismissed. By January 16, 2026, Cole must either:
- file an amended fee-waiver application addressing the deficiencies identified in the November 5 order;
- pay the $405 filing fee; or
- file a written response explaining why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute the case or comply with court orders.
The court stated that an amended application filed by the deadline would itself count as Cole’s response to the order to show cause. If he needs more time, he must explain in a written response why additional time is needed and how much time he requests.
Ruling and Consequences
The court did not dismiss the action in this order. It warned that failure to respond by January 16, 2026, would lead to a report and recommendation that the action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. The clerk was directed to mail the order to Cole.
Judge Peter H. Kang entered the order as a United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.