Banks-Reed v. United States
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:23-cv-04200
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Banks-Reed v. United States, Judge Hixson ordered plaintiffs to explain their missed filing deadline or face likely dismissal.
The plaintiffs and the United States of America; the case remained pending subject to the plaintiffs' required response.
What happened
In Banks-Reed v. United States, the United States asked the court to dismiss the case, but the plaintiffs had not filed a proper response.
The court canceled the scheduled July 11, 2024 hearing and ordered the plaintiffs to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failing to pursue it and meet court deadlines. By May 15, 2024, they had to file a declaration and either a proper opposition or a statement that they did not oppose dismissal.
Judge Thomas Hixson warned that failing to respond in writing would be treated as an admission that the plaintiffs did not intend to pursue the case, and that the case would likely be dismissed. The order did not dismiss the case or decide the United States' motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Banks-Reed v. United States · No. 3:23-cv-04200
- Thomas Hixson
- Apr. 30, 2024
Background
The United States of America filed a motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs had not filed an opposition that complied with Civil Local Rule 7. The opinion does not state the grounds for the motion to dismiss.
Order to Show Cause
The court issued an order to show cause, meaning it required the plaintiffs to explain why the case should not be dismissed. The court relied on its authority to dismiss an action on its own initiative to ensure the orderly and prompt handling of cases. It vacated the hearing scheduled for July 11, 2024.
The plaintiffs were ordered to file a declaration by May 15, 2024, along with either an opposition complying with Civil Local Rule 7-3(a) or a statement of nonopposition complying with Local Rule 7-3(b). If the plaintiffs filed an opposition, the United States could file a reply by May 22, 2024.
Disposition
The court did not decide the United States' motion to dismiss and did not dismiss the case in this order. It warned that failing to provide a written response by the deadline would be treated as an admission that the plaintiffs did not intend to prosecute the case, and that the case would likely be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court deadlines. Judge Thomas Hixson issued the order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.