Hart v. Equifax Information Systems Inc. et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
EUGENE HART,
Plaintiff,
v.
EQUIFAX INFORMATION SYSTEMS
INC., et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 26-cv-00587-PHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
RE: FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT
ORDERS
Re: Dkt. 6
On January 20, 2026, Plaintiff Eugene Hart, Jr. (“Hart”), who is representing himself, filed
the Complaint in this action against Defendant Equifax Information Services, LLC and three
individuals (“Defendants”) along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). [Dkt.
Nos. 1, 2]. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that Defendants committed identity theft and fraud by
opening financial accounts in Plaintiff’s name and without Plaintiff’s consent. [Dkt. 1].
On July 16, 2026, the Court issued an Order denying without prejudice Plaintiff’s application
to proceed in forma pauperis because his financial affidavit was incomplete. [Dkt. 6]. Plaintiff was
granted leave to file an amended in forma pauperis application by August 17, 2026. Id. The Court
warned Plaintiff that failure to file an amended IFP application or pay the filing fee by the August
17, 2026 deadline may result in the Court issuing an order directing the Clerk to reassign this case
to a District Judge along with a recommendation that this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute
and/or comply with Court orders. Id. Since the issuance of that July 16 Order, Plaintiff has filed
nothing on the docket at all.
Over six weeks have passed since the August 17, 2026 deadline for Plaintiff to file an
Case 3:26-cv-00587-PHK Document 9 Filed 10/08/26 Page 1 of 3

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
amended IFP application or pay the filing fee. Plaintiff has not filed an amended IFP application,
nor requested an extension of time to do so, nor otherwise indicated his intent to continue
prosecuting this action.
Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing why this action should not be
dismissed for failure to prosecute and/or for failure to comply with the Court Orders. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(b); 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). If Plaintiff files, by October 30, 2026, an amended IFP application
curing the deficiencies noted in the July 16, 2026 Order, such a filing will be deemed 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 October 30, 2026 deadline.
If Plaintiff fails to respond to this Order to Show Cause by the October 30, 2026 deadline
set herein, the Court will issue a Report and Recommendation that this action be dismissed without
prejudice 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.
The Court previously advised Plaintiff of the various resources made available for pro se
litigants. [Dkt. 6 at 4-5]. Plaintiff must comply with all of this Court’s Orders (including this Order
to Show Cause and all Standing Orders available on the Court’s website) and all deadlines required
by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of this Court, the General Orders of this
Court, and any other statutory requirements in a timely fashion.
The Court notes this is one of more than 50 cases Plaintiff has filed in this District in the last
six months many of which have been dismissed for failure to prosecute. See, e.g., Hart v. Lewis, No.
26-4731-RFL, Dkt. No. 9 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2026 Order). In the Lewis case, Plaintiff has been
ordered to show cause why he should not be declared a vexatious litigant. Id.
Case 3:26-cv-00587-PHK Document 9 Filed 10/08/26 Page 2 of 3

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. 	By no later than October 30, 2026, Plaintiff is ORDERED to file a written response to
this Order in which he shall Show Cause and explain why the Court should not dismiss
this case for failure to prosecute this action and/or failure to comply with Court Orders.
2. 	Plaintiff is admonished and warned that failure to timely respond to this Order to Show
Cause will result in negative consequences for Plaintiff’s case as discussed herein.
3. 	The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail this Order to Show Cause to Plaintiff at his address of
record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 7, 2026
______________________________________
PETER H. KANG
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:26-cv-00587-PHK Document 9 Filed 10/08/26 Page 3 of 3