Rasheed v. United States Government Agent

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 TAHEE A. RASHEED, Case No. 25-cv-04096-TSH 6 Plaintiff, 7 y. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 8 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT 9 AGENT, et al., Defendants. 10 11 Plaintiff Tahee A. Rasheed initiated this lawsuit by filing a complaint (ECF No. 1) and 12 || application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2). On May 19, 2025, the Court granted the 5 13 application but found the complaint deficient under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). ECF No. 4. As such, the 14 || Court directed Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in the 3 15 screening order by June 12, 2025. The Court warned that if Plaintiff failed to cure the a 16 || deficiencies, the case would likely be reassigned to a district judge with a recommendation for 3 17 || dismissal. Plaintiff has failed to respond. 18 The Court possesses the inherent power to dismiss an action sua sponte “to achieve the 19 || orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-33 20 || (1962). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be 2] dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court deadlines. Plaintiff shall file a 22 || declaration by July 3, 2025. Notice is hereby provided that failure to file a written response will 73 || be deemed an admission that you do not intend to prosecute, and this case will likely be dismissed. Thus, it is imperative the Court receive a written response by the deadline above. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: June 20, 2025 27 TAA} □□ THOMAS S. HIXSON 28 United States Magistrate Judge