Arcelio Joseph Reybol v. Space Force, et al.

Opinion

ARCELIO JOSEPH REYBOL, Case No. 25-cv-03086-PHK

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

On April 4, 2025, Plaintiff, who is representing himself pro se in this action, filed an initial Complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). See Dkts. 1-2. The Court denied Plaintiff’s IFP application on June 23, 2025, for failure to provide sufficient information regarding his assets and liabilities from which the Court could determine whether or not Plaintiff is entitled to IFP status. [Dkt. 6]. In that Order, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended IFP application by no later than July 21, 2025. Id. The July 21, 2025, deadline for filing an amended IFP application has passed by more than three months. To date, Plaintiff has neither filed an amended IFP application nor requested an extension of time from the Court to do so. The Court’s June 23, 2025, Order stated that “[s]hould Plaintiff Reybol fail to file a properly completed, amended in forma pauperis application by the deadline and should he fail to pay the filing fee by the deadline as well, this will have negative consequences for this case, including the potential issuance of a report and recommendation of denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis with prejudice or such other further consequences as the Court may determine (including potentially dismissal of this action with prejudice).” Id. at 6. to prosecute their action or fails to comply with court orders. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962) (dismissal for failure to prosecute); Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 987 (9th Cir. 1999) (dismissal for failure to comply with court orders). Plaintiff was previously informed and is warned again by this ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, that failure to comply with this Court’s orders and failure to prosecute this case will result in negative consequences for Plaintiff’s case, including the dismissal of this action. Specifically, failure to respond to this Order to Show Cause and failure to file an amended IFP application (or pay the filing fee) by the deadline will be found to be a failure to comply with this Court’s orders and a failure to prosecute this lawsuit, which will lead to consequences adverse to Plaintiff’s lawsuit. Accordingly, the Court herein ORDERS that, by no later than November 14, 2025, Plaintiff SHALL EITHER (1) file an amended IFP application which addresses and cures the deficiencies noted by the Court’s June 23, 2025 Order; (2) forego IFP status and pay the $405 filing fee; OR (3) file a written response to this Order to Show Cause explaining why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute this case or for failure to comply with this Court’s directives and orders. To be clear, if Plaintiff files (by November 14, 2025) an amended IFP application addressing and curing the deficiencies noted in the June 23, 2025 Order [Dkt. 6], such a filing will be deemed to be a response to this Order to Show Cause and no other written response would be necessary. If Plaintiff needs additional time to prepare and file an amended IFP application, Plaintiff shall explain and show sufficient grounds in good faith why and how much additional time is needed in any written response filed by the November 14, 2025, deadline. If Plaintiff fails to respond to this Order to Show Cause by the November 14, 2025, deadline set herein, the Court will issue a Report and Recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders and the Court will issue an Order directing the Clerk of Court to reassign this action to a district judge for consideration of and to take action on that Report and Recommendation. 1 2 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