1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 MALIK M. JUSTIN, Case No. 25-cv-03505-TSH 7 Plaintiff, g y. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 DRAYA MICHELE, 10 Defendant. 11 12 On April 23, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff Malik M. Justin’s in forma pauperis 5 13 application, screened his complaint pursuant to

, and directed him to file a first 14 || amended complaint by May 22, 2025. ECF No. 4. The Court warned Plaintiff that if he failed to 3 15 cure the deficiencies identified in the screening order, the case would be reassigned to a district a 16 || judge with a recommendation for dismissal. Plaintiff has failed to respond.

17 The Court possesses the inherent power to dismiss an action sua sponte “to achieve the 18 || orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,

, 629-33 19 || (1962). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be 20 || dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court deadlines. Plaintiff shall file a declaration by June 11, 2025. Notice is hereby provided that failure to file a written response will 9 || be deemed an admission that you do not intend to prosecute, and this case will likely be dismissed. 23 Thus, it is imperative the Court receive a written response by the deadline above. IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 Dated: May 28, 2025 7 TAA} □□ THOMAS S. HIXSON 28 United States Magistrate Judge