Dixon v. Hahn

Background

Yusuf Faruq Dixon appeared without a lawyer and proceeded without paying filing fees. In an August 7, 2023 order, the court dismissed his federal-law claims but gave him 60 days to file an amended complaint asserting the claims for which the court had allowed repleading. The court later granted Dixon another 60 days. Both orders warned that failing to file an amended complaint could result in dismissal of the action, the court declining to consider the state-law claims, and an order requiring Dixon to explain why he should not be barred from filing future civil actions without first obtaining permission to proceed without paying filing fees.

Dixon did not file an amended complaint. The opinion does not repeat the reasons for the earlier dismissal of the federal claims; it refers to the August 7, 2023 order instead.

Rulings

The court dismissed the action. It dismissed Dixon’s federal-law claims for the reasons stated in the August 7, 2023 order. It declined to consider Dixon’s state-law claims under supplemental jurisdiction, a court’s authority to hear related state-law claims in a case involving federal claims, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

The court also directed Dixon to show cause—meaning to explain why a proposed order should not be entered—by submitting a declaration within 30 days. The proposed filing injunction would bar him from filing future civil actions in that court without first obtaining permission to proceed without paying filing fees. The court stated that it would impose the injunction if Dixon did not submit the declaration on time or if the declaration did not show good cause. The injunction had not yet been imposed in this order.

The court certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Dixon permission to appeal without paying filing fees. It directed the Clerk of Court not to enter a judgment dismissing the action because Dixon still had to respond to the show-cause directive.