1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 MALIK M. JUSTIN, Case No. 25-cv-03482-VKD

9 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS 10 v. CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

11 JOE BRENTON BARON, Defendant. 12

13 14 On May 5, 2025, the Court issued an order screening Mr. Justin’s complaint, staying 15 service of process, and directing him to file an amended complaint by June 5, 2025. Dkt. No. 4. 16 The order stated that “[i]f Mr. Justin fails to file an amended complaint in time, or if the amended 17 complaint fails to cure all identified defects described in this order, the Court may issue an order 18 reassigning the case to a district judge with a recommendation that the complaint be dismissed in 19 whole or in part.” Id. at 1; see also id. at 3. 20 The June 5, 2025 deadline has passed. The docket indicates that Mr. Justin has not filed an 21 amended complaint or any request for an extension of time to do so. 22 The Court possesses the inherent power to dismiss an action sua sponte “to achieve the 23 orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,

, 629-33 24 (1962). By July 2, 2025, Mr. Justin shall file a written response to this order explaining why this 25 action should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute this case and to comply with court- 26 ordered deadlines. If Mr. Justin does not respond to this order by the July 2, 2025 deadline, the 27 Court will issue an order reassigning this action to a district judge with a recommendation that the 1 complaint be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and/or to follow court orders. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 || Dated: June 11, 2025 4

Virginia K. DeMarchi 6 United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12

13

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28