Doe v. West Contra Costa Unified School District
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:26-cv-04738
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In John Doe v. West Contra Costa Unified School District, Judge Hixson ordered a response explaining why the case should not be dismissed for missed deadlines.
John Doe must submit the required declaration and either oppose the District’s motion to dismiss or state that he does not oppose it by September 17, 2026. The District may file a reply if he files an opposition, and the case may be dismissed if he does not respond.
What happened
John Doe v. West Contra Costa Unified School District involves the District’s pending motion to dismiss. John Doe did not file the required response to that motion.
The court canceled the scheduled October 8, 2026 hearing and ordered John Doe to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failing to pursue it and meet court deadlines. By September 17, 2026, he must file a declaration and either an opposition or a statement that he does not oppose the motion. If he files an opposition, the District may reply by September 24, 2026.
Judge Thomas S. Hixson warned that failing to respond in writing by the deadline will be treated as an admission that John Doe does not intend to pursue the case, and that the case will likely be dismissed. The court did not dismiss the case in this order.
The detailed version
- Doe v. West Contra Costa Unified School District · No. 3:26-cv-04738
- Thomas Hixson
- Sept. 10, 2026
Background
The West Contra Costa Unified School District filed a motion to dismiss on August 26, 2026. John Doe did not file an opposition as required by the court’s local rules.
Order to Show Cause
The court issued an order to show cause, meaning an order requiring a party to explain why a particular action should not be taken. The court directed John Doe to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute—failure to actively pursue the case—and failure to comply with court deadlines.
The court vacated the hearing previously noticed for October 8, 2026. It ordered John Doe to file a declaration by September 17, 2026, together with either an opposition to the motion to dismiss or a statement that he does not oppose it. If John Doe files an opposition, the District may file a reply by September 24, 2026.
Disposition
Judge Thomas S. Hixson did not decide the District’s motion to dismiss or dismiss the case in this order. Instead, the court warned that failure to file a written response by September 17, 2026, will be treated as an admission that John Doe does not intend to prosecute the case, and that the case will likely be dismissed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.