Edward Dwayne Lacy, et al. v. Social Security Administration, et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD DWANYE LACY, et al., Case No. 25-cv-06256-AGT(AGT)

Plaintiffs, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION v. TO DISMISS AND ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRA- TION, et al., Dkt. Nos. 4, 15 Defendants.

Plaintiffs Edward Dwayne Lacy and Xavier Dwayne Lacy (collectively, Plaintiffs) haven’t filed an amended complaint, and the deadline by which to do so has now passed. See dkt. 8. For the reasons identified in the prior screening order, id., the undersigned (i) requests that the Clerk of the Court reassign Plaintiffs’ case to a district judge and (ii) recommends that the district judge dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint, without leave to amend, for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Plaintiffs have filed a request for an extension of time to serve. Dkt. 15. Since the undersigned is recommending dismissal, this request is denied. Additionally, Plaintiffs filed a “motion for indirect contempt of court order.” Dkt. 4. This motion is denied: defendants had not been served at the time of its filing and therefore had not failed to comply with this Court’s order. See Gen. Signal Corp. v. Donallco, Inc., 787 F.2d 1376, 1379 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Civil contempt occurs when a party fails to comply with a court order.”). Plaintiffs may object to this recommendation, but must do so within fourteen days of receiving a copy of it. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 4, 2025 Alex G. Tse United States Magistrate Judge