Street v. Kijakazi
- Edward Davila
- 5:21-cv-05697
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Street v. Kijakazi, Judge Davila ordered Street to explain why her case should not be dismissed for failing to move it forward.
Charlene J. Street is required to respond to the order and appear by telephone; the case could be dismissed with prejudice if she does not file the required response.
What happened
Street v. Kijakazi concerns a case filed by Charlene J. Street. Her attorney asked to withdraw because of a breakdown in communication, and the court allowed the withdrawal after Street did not respond to that request.
The court gave Street 60 days to find a new attorney. She later wrote that she could not find one, and the court received no filing from her after March 28, 2022.
Judge Davila ordered Street to file a written response by October 17, 2022, and attend a telephone hearing on October 27, 2022, to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The order states that failing to respond would lead to dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), but this order itself did not dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Street v. Kijakazi · No. 5:21-cv-05697
- Edward Davila
- Sept. 30, 2022
Background
Charlene J. Street filed the action on July 26, 2021, and filed an amended complaint on September 2, 2021. The defendant filed an answer and the administrative record on December 10, 2021.
Street’s attorney moved to withdraw, citing a breakdown in communication. The court set a deadline for Street to respond, but received no response regarding the withdrawal motion. On February 28, 2022, the court granted the attorney’s motion to withdraw and gave Street 60 days to retain new counsel. Street later sent the court a letter stating that she had been unable to locate new counsel. The court stated that it had received no filing from her since March 28, 2022.
Order to Show Cause
The court stated that it has inherent authority to dismiss an action to ensure the orderly and prompt handling of cases. It ordered Street to file a written response by October 17, 2022, and to appear by telephone on October 27, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. to explain why the action should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). A dismissal with prejudice would bar refiling the action.
The court stated that if Street failed to file a written response by the deadline, it would dismiss the action with prejudice under Rule 41(b). The court strongly urged her to seek help from the Federal Pro Se Program, which provides free information and limited legal advice to people representing themselves in federal civil cases. This was an order requiring a response and hearing; it was not itself a dismissal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.