1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 7 8 MALIK M. JUSTIN, Case No. 25-cv-03527-PHK

9 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND 10 v. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER 11 INVENT HELP, Re: Dkt. 5 12 Defendant.

13 14 On April 22, 2025, Plaintiff Malik Justin, who is representing himself in this action, filed a 15 complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). See Dkts. 1-2. The Court 16 denied Plaintiff’s IFP application on July 2, 2025 for failure to provide sufficient information 17 regarding his assets and liabilities from which the Court could determine whether or not Plaintiff 18 is entitled to IFP status. [Dkt. 5]. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended IFP 19 application by no later than September 2, 2025. Id. 20 The September 2, 2025 deadline for filing an amended IFP application has passed by 21 approximately one month. To date, Plaintiff has neither filed an amended IFP application nor 22 requested an extension of time from the Court to do so. 23 The Court’s July 2, 2025 Order stated that “[s]hould Plaintiff fail to file an amended IFP 24 application or pay the filing fee by SEPTEMBER 2, 2025, the Court may issue an order directing 25 the Clerk to reassign this case to a District Judge along with a recommendation that this case be 26 dismissed for failure to prosecute and/or comply with Court orders.” Id. at 3 (emphasis in 27 original). 1 to prosecute their action or fails to comply with court orders. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see Link v. 2 Wabash R.R. Co.,

(1962) (dismissal for failure to prosecute); Yourish v. Cal. 3 Amplifier,

, 987 (9th Cir. 1999) (dismissal for failure to comply with court orders). 4 Plaintiff was previously informed, and is warned again by this ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, that 5 failure to comply with this Court’s orders and failure to prosecute this case will result in negative 6 consequences for Plaintiff’s case, including a recommendation from the undersigned for the 7 dismissal of this action. Specifically, failure to respond to this Order to Show Cause and failure to 8 file an amended IFP application (or pay the filing fee) by the deadline will be found to be a failure 9 to comply with this Court’s orders and a failure to prosecute this lawsuit, which will lead to 10 consequences adverse to Plaintiff’s lawsuit. 11 Accordingly, the Court herein ORDERS that, by no later than November 7, 2025, 12 Plaintiff SHALL EITHER (1) file an amended IFP application which addresses and cures the 13 deficiencies noted by the Court’s July 2, 2025 Order [Dkt. 5]; OR (2) forego IFP status and pay 14 the $405 filing fee; OR (3) file a written response to this Order to Show Cause explaining why 15 this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute this case or for failure to comply with 16 this Court’s directives and orders. To be clear, if Plaintiff files (by November 7, 2025) an 17 amended IFP application curing the deficiencies noted in the July 2, 2025 Order, such a filing of 18 an amended IFP application will be deemed to be a response to this Order to Show Cause and no 19 other written response would be necessary. 20 If Plaintiff needs additional time to prepare and file an amended IFP application, Plaintiff 21 shall explain why and how much additional time is needed in any written response filed by the 22 November 7, 2025 deadline. 23 If Plaintiff fails to respond to this Order to Show Cause by the November 7, 2025 deadline 24 set herein, the Court will issue a Report and Recommendation that this action be dismissed for 25 failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders, and the Court will order this case be 26 reassigned to a District Judge for consideration of and any action to be taken on that Report and 27 Recommendation. 1 of record. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: October 2, 2025 4 PETER H. KANG 5 United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 «14

15 16

17

© Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28