Chapman v. Chao
- Edward Davila
- 5:20-cv-04662
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Chapman v. Chao, Judge Davila ordered Byron Chapman to explain why his inactive case should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Byron Chapman, whose case was placed at risk of dismissal with prejudice because the court found there had been no activity after August 6, 2020.
What happened
In Chapman v. Chao, Byron Chapman filed the action on July 13, 2020, and filed the summons return on August 6, 2020. The case had no activity after that filing.
The court ordered Chapman to submit a written response by July 2, 2021, and to appear on July 15, 2021, to explain why the action should not be dismissed with prejudice for failing to pursue it. The order did not itself dismiss the case.
Judge Edward J. Davila warned that if Chapman did not submit the required response, the court would dismiss the action with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
The detailed version
- Chapman v. Chao · No. 5:20-cv-04662
- Edward Davila
- May 24, 2021
Background
Byron Chapman filed this action on July 13, 2020. He filed the summons return on August 6, 2020. The order states that there had been no activity in the case since then.
Order to Show Cause
The court cited its inherent authority to dismiss an action on its own initiative to achieve the orderly and efficient resolution of cases. It issued an order to show cause, meaning Chapman was required to explain why the case should remain pending.
The court ordered Chapman to file a written response by July 2, 2021, and to appear before the court on July 15, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. The stated issue was whether the action should be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Disposition
The court did not dismiss the action in this order. Instead, it ordered Chapman to respond and appear. The court stated that if Chapman failed to file a written response by July 2, 2021, it would dismiss the action with prejudice under Rule 41(b). The order was signed by United States District Judge Edward J. Davila.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.