Wescott v. Apple Inc
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:23-cv-06254
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Wescott v. Apple Inc., Judge DeMarchi ordered Carl Wescott to explain why his self-represented case should not be dismissed without prejudice.
Carl A. Wescott, the self-represented plaintiff; the order also concerns his action against Apple Inc.
What happened
In Wescott v. Apple Inc., Carl A. Wescott, who was representing himself, filed a complaint and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court granted that request but found that the complaint did not adequately identify the court’s jurisdiction or state a claim for relief.
The court stayed service on Apple Inc. and gave Wescott until January 5, 2024, to file an amended complaint. The docket showed that he had not filed one by the deadline.
Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi ordered Wescott to respond in writing by January 22, 2024, explaining why the case should not be dismissed for failing to prosecute and follow court orders. The order states that the case will be reassigned to a district judge with a recommendation that it be dismissed without prejudice; it did not itself enter that dismissal.
The detailed version
- Wescott v. Apple Inc · No. 5:23-cv-06254
- Virginia Demarchi
- Jan. 8, 2024
Background
On December 4, 2023, Carl A. Wescott filed a complaint against Apple Inc. and an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court granted the application on December 6, 2023. In the same order, however, the court found that the complaint did not sufficiently identify a basis for federal jurisdiction and did not state a claim for relief.
The court stayed service of process and gave Wescott until January 5, 2024, to file an amended complaint. The earlier order warned that, if he could not correct the identified problems, the court would recommend ending and dismissing all or part of the complaint. The docket showed that Wescott had not filed an amended complaint by the deadline.
Order to Show Cause
The court invoked its inherent power to dismiss an action on its own initiative to ensure the orderly and expeditious handling of cases. It ordered Wescott to file a written response by January 22, 2024, explaining why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders.
Disposition
The order states that the action will be reassigned to a district judge, with a recommendation that it be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders. This January 8 order was an order to show cause; it did not itself enter the recommended dismissal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.