1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 EDUCATIONAL FINANCIAL Case No. 25-cv-09421-VKD COUNSELORS, et al., 9 Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE 10 FAILURE TO PROSECUTE v. 11

CITY OF CAPITOLA / CAPITOLA

12 POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants. 13 14 15 On October 31, 2025, plaintiff Kevin Smith and a trust, the Educational Financial 16 Counselors (“EFC”),1 filed a complaint against the City of Capitola, the Capitola Police 17 Department (“CPD”), several officers and records technicians of the CPD, KJRB Inc., a towing 18 company, and two of KJRB Inc.’s owners. Dkt. No. 1. 19 On November 5, 2025, the Court issued an order denying without prejudice Mr. Smith’s 20 application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt. No. 5. The Court denied Mr. Smith’s IFP 21 application on two grounds: (1) “the application omit[ed] information necessary for the Court to 22 make an accurate assessment of Mr. Smith’s assets (including those that may be held by a trust he 23 controls) and income, as compared to his expenses, and thus [did] not show with ‘particularity, 24 definiteness and certainty’ that he cannot pay the required filing fee”; and (2) “plaintiff EFC 25 cannot qualify for IFP status” because a trust is not a “natural person” and therefore, “the required 26

27 1 The complaint identifies EFC as a plaintiff, Dkt. No. 1 at 2 ¶ 1, although elsewhere in the 1 filing fee must be paid, regardless of whether Mr. Smith might otherwise qualify for IFP status.” 2 || Id. at 2-3. The Court gave Mr. Smith until November 26, 2025 to file an amended IFP application. 3 Id. at 3. Alternatively, plaintiffs had the option to pay the filing fee by November 26, 2025. Id. 4 The Court also noted that EFC, as a trust, may not proceed without counsel. Jd. The Court 5 directed EFC to appear and be represented by a licensed attorney by November 26, 2025 if it 6 || wishes to continue as a plaintiff in this action. Id. 7 The November 26, 2025 deadline has passed. There is no indication on the docket that Mr. 8 Smith has filed an amended IFP application, that plaintiffs have paid the filing fee, or that EFC has 9 obtained counsel, although it continues to be named as a plaintiff in this action. 10 The Court possesses the inherent power to dismiss an action sua sponte “to achieve the 11 orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 12 (1962). By December 23, 2025, plaintiffs shall file a written response to this order, showing 5 13 cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute this case. If plaintiffs do not 14 respond to this order by the December 23, 2025 deadline, the Court will issue an order reassigning 3 15 this action to a district judge with a recommendation that the complaint be dismissed for failure to 16 || prosecute and/or to comply with court orders.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18 Dated: December 2, 2025 19 , ee □ 20 Vnrawin®, QeMarche: 1 Virginia K. DeMarchi United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28