Stewart v. VA Medical Center
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:22-cv-04683
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Stewart v. VA Medical Center, Judge Martinez-Olguin ordered Stewart to explain his missed response deadline, warning that dismissal could follow.
William-Bullock Stewart, who was ordered to respond to the defendants’ motion to dismiss; the defendants were affected because the court required Stewart to explain his failure to respond before potentially ruling on their motion.
What happened
William-Bullock Stewart, representing himself, sued VA Medical Center and about 87 individuals employed there. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Stewart’s response to the motion was due June 5, 2023, but he had not filed one when the court issued this order. The court ordered him to explain why the motion should not be granted. It also said he could file a notice of voluntary dismissal if he no longer intended to pursue the case.
The court did not decide the motion to dismiss in this order. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin warned that failing to respond as ordered could result in the motion being granted and the case being dismissed with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Stewart v. VA Medical Center · No. 3:22-cv-04683
- Martinez-Olguin
- June 12, 2023
Background
William-Bullock Stewart filed the complaint on August 15, 2022, against VA Medical Center and about 87 individuals it employs. The opinion identifies Stewart as representing himself. On May 22, 2023, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning they argued the court lacked authority to hear the case.
Under the court’s local rules, Stewart’s response was due June 5, 2023. The court stated that the deadline had passed and Stewart had not filed a response.
Order
The court issued an order to show cause. It ordered Stewart to file a written response explaining why the defendants’ motion to dismiss should not be granted. The court also stated that, if Stewart no longer intended to prosecute the case, he could file a notice of voluntary dismissal.
The court warned that failure to respond as ordered could result in the motion to dismiss being granted and the action being dismissed with prejudice. The opinion does not state that the motion to dismiss was granted or that the case was dismissed. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.