Arcelio Joseph Reybol v. Space Force, et al.

N.D. California

Arcelio Joseph Reybol v. Space Force, et al.

DecidedOctober 22, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-03086

StatusUnknown

This text of Arcelio Joseph Reybol v. Space Force, et al. (Arcelio Joseph Reybol v. Space Force, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arcelio Joseph Reybol v. Space Force, et al., (N.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 7 8 ARCELIO JOSEPH REYBOL, Case No. 25-cv-03086-PHK

9 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND 10 v. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER 11 SPACE FORCE, et al., Re: Dkt. 6 Defendants. 12

13 14 On April 4, 2025, Plaintiff, who is representing himself pro se in this action, filed an initial 15 Complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). See Dkts. 1-2. The Court 16 denied Plaintiff’s IFP application on June 23, 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. 6]. In that Order, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an 19 amended IFP application by no later than July 21, 2025. Id. The July 21, 2025, deadline for filing 20 an amended IFP application has passed by more than three months. To date, Plaintiff has neither 21 filed an amended IFP application nor requested an extension of time from the Court to do so. 22 The Court’s June 23, 2025, Order stated that “[s]hould Plaintiff Reybol fail to file a 23 properly completed, amended in forma pauperis application by the deadline and should he fail to 24 pay the filing fee by the deadline as well, this will have negative consequences for this case, 25 including the potential issuance of a report and recommendation of denial of leave to proceed in 26 forma pauperis with prejudice or such other further consequences as the Court may determine 27 (including potentially dismissal of this action with prejudice).” Id. at 6. 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., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962) (dismissal for failure to prosecute); Yourish v. Cal. 3 Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 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, 5 that failure to comply with this Court’s orders and failure to prosecute this case will result in 6 negative consequences for Plaintiff’s case, including the dismissal of this action. Specifically, 7 failure to respond to this Order to Show Cause and failure to file an amended IFP application (or 8 pay the filing fee) by the deadline will be found to be a failure to comply with this Court’s orders 9 and a failure to prosecute this lawsuit, which will lead to consequences adverse to Plaintiff’s 10 lawsuit. 11 Accordingly, the Court herein ORDERS that, by no later than November 14, 2025, 12 Plaintiff SHALL EITHER (1) file an amended IFP application which addresses and cures the 13 deficiencies noted by the Court’s June 23, 2025 Order; (2) forego IFP status and pay the $405 14 filing fee; OR (3) file a written response to this Order to Show Cause explaining why this action 15 should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute this case or for failure to comply with this Court’s 16 directives and orders. To be clear, if Plaintiff files (by November 14, 2025) an amended IFP 17 application addressing and curing the deficiencies noted in the June 23, 2025 Order [Dkt. 6], such 18 a filing will be deemed to be a response to this Order to Show Cause and no other written response 19 would be necessary. 20 If Plaintiff needs additional time to prepare and file an amended IFP application, Plaintiff 21 shall explain and show sufficient grounds in good faith why and how much additional time is 22 needed in any written response filed by the November 14, 2025, deadline. 23 If Plaintiff fails to respond to this Order to Show Cause by the November 14, 2025, 24 deadline set herein, the Court will issue a Report and Recommendation that this action be 25 dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders and the Court will issue 26 an Order directing the Clerk of Court to reassign this action to a district judge for consideration of 27 and to take action on that Report and Recommendation. 1 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: October 22, 2025 Ces 6 PETER H.KANG | 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 1] as 12

13 «14

15 16

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 7 8 ARCELIO JOSEPH REYBOL, Case No. 25-cv-03086-PHK

9 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND 10 v. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER 11 SPACE FORCE, et al., Re: Dkt. 6 Defendants. 12

13 14 On April 4, 2025, Plaintiff, who is representing himself pro se in this action, filed an initial 15 Complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). See Dkts. 1-2. The Court 16 denied Plaintiff’s IFP application on June 23, 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. 6]. In that Order, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an 19 amended IFP application by no later than July 21, 2025. Id. The July 21, 2025, deadline for filing 20 an amended IFP application has passed by more than three months. To date, Plaintiff has neither 21 filed an amended IFP application nor requested an extension of time from the Court to do so. 22 The Court’s June 23, 2025, Order stated that “[s]hould Plaintiff Reybol fail to file a 23 properly completed, amended in forma pauperis application by the deadline and should he fail to 24 pay the filing fee by the deadline as well, this will have negative consequences for this case, 25 including the potential issuance of a report and recommendation of denial of leave to proceed in 26 forma pauperis with prejudice or such other further consequences as the Court may determine 27 (including potentially dismissal of this action with prejudice).” Id. at 6. 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., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962) (dismissal for failure to prosecute); Yourish v. Cal. 3 Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 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, 5 that failure to comply with this Court’s orders and failure to prosecute this case will result in 6 negative consequences for Plaintiff’s case, including the dismissal of this action. Specifically, 7 failure to respond to this Order to Show Cause and failure to file an amended IFP application (or 8 pay the filing fee) by the deadline will be found to be a failure to comply with this Court’s orders 9 and a failure to prosecute this lawsuit, which will lead to consequences adverse to Plaintiff’s 10 lawsuit. 11 Accordingly, the Court herein ORDERS that, by no later than November 14, 2025, 12 Plaintiff SHALL EITHER (1) file an amended IFP application which addresses and cures the 13 deficiencies noted by the Court’s June 23, 2025 Order; (2) forego IFP status and pay the $405 14 filing fee; OR (3) file a written response to this Order to Show Cause explaining why this action 15 should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute this case or for failure to comply with this Court’s 16 directives and orders. To be clear, if Plaintiff files (by November 14, 2025) an amended IFP 17 application addressing and curing the deficiencies noted in the June 23, 2025 Order [Dkt. 6], such 18 a filing will be deemed to be a response to this Order to Show Cause and no other written response 19 would be necessary. 20 If Plaintiff needs additional time to prepare and file an amended IFP application, Plaintiff 21 shall explain and show sufficient grounds in good faith why and how much additional time is 22 needed in any written response filed by the November 14, 2025, deadline. 23 If Plaintiff fails to respond to this Order to Show Cause by the November 14, 2025, 24 deadline set herein, the Court will issue a Report and Recommendation that this action be 25 dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders and the Court will issue 26 an Order directing the Clerk of Court to reassign this action to a district judge for consideration of 27 and to take action on that Report and Recommendation. 1 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: October 22, 2025 Ces 6 PETER H.KANG | 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 1] as 12

13 «14

15 16

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Arcelio Joseph Reybol v. Space Force, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arcelio-joseph-reybol-v-space-force-et-al-cand-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack