Baird v. Mark and Donna: Living Trust
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:23-cv-03712
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Baird v. Mark and Donna: Living-Trust, Judge DeMarchi ordered Jeffrey Andrew Baird to explain why his case should not be dismissed for failing to follow court orders.
Jeffrey Andrew Baird, whose case was subject to a possible dismissal unless he responded to the order and addressed his missed filing-fee and pleading deadlines.
What happened
In Baird v. Mark and Donna: Living-Trust, Jeffrey Andrew Baird, who was representing himself, filed a complaint and an amended complaint and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court found that his fee-waiver application was incomplete and that his amended complaint did not show federal jurisdiction or state a claim for relief. The court gave him deadlines to submit a corrected application or pay the fee and to file a second amended complaint, but the docket showed that he did neither.
Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi ordered Baird to explain by September 22, 2023, why the case should not be dismissed for failing to prosecute it and comply with court orders. The court had not yet dismissed the case; it said that failing to respond would lead to reassignment to a district judge with a recommendation that the case be dismissed without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Baird v. Mark and Donna: Living Trust · No. 5:23-cv-03712
- Virginia Demarchi
- Sept. 8, 2023
Background
Jeffrey Andrew Baird filed a complaint on July 26, 2023, and an amended complaint the next day. He was representing himself and submitted an application to proceed without paying the filing fee, commonly called an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
On July 31, 2023, the court found that Baird’s application was incomplete. It directed him to submit a renewed application containing all required information or pay the filing fee by August 31, 2023. The court also found that the amended complaint did not establish federal jurisdiction and did not state a claim for relief. It gave Baird permission to file a second amended complaint by the same deadline.
Failure to Meet Deadlines
The docket showed that Baird had not submitted a renewed fee-waiver application, paid the filing fee, or filed a second amended complaint. The docket also showed no activity since the court’s July 31 order.
Order
The court issued an order to show cause, meaning an order requiring Baird to explain why the case should not be dismissed. It ordered him to submit a written response by September 22, 2023, explaining why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders.
The court did not dismiss the action in this order. It stated that if Baird failed to respond by the deadline, the action would be reassigned to a district judge with a recommendation that it be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders. The court relied on its inherent power to dismiss cases to achieve their orderly and expeditious disposition.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.