Jones v. Jennings, et al.

Filing 20

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 06/07/16 ordering the motion 17 is granted. Jones may proceed on claim 1 under 42 USC 1983. The hearing currently set for June 17, 2016 is VACATED, but the initialscheduling conference currently set for the same day will proceed as scheduled. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

WENDY JONES,

11
12
13
14

No. 2:15-cv-02364-KJM-AC
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

JACQUELINE JENNINGS, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16
17

On April 19, 2016, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to

18

dismiss by Jacqueline Jennings and the County of Sacramento. ECF No. 16. The court denied

19

the motion to dismiss plaintiff Wendy Jones’s first claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. at 5. The

20

court granted the motion to dismiss the second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth claims with leave to

21

amend. Id. And the court granted the motion to dismiss the seventh claim without leave to

22

amend and with prejudice. Id. Jones was allowed twenty-one days to file an amended complaint.

23

Id. She did not file an amended complaint.

24

On May 19, 2016, the same defendants moved to dismiss claims two, three, and

25

four and to dismiss the County of Sacramento. ECF No. 17. The motion was accompanied by

26

the declaration of Jill Nathan, counsel for the defendants. Ms. Nathan explained she had

27

contacted Zachary Reber, plaintiffs’ counsel, and Mr. Reber had confirmed Jones would not file

28

an amended complaint and would pursue only a claim under § 1983 against Jacqueline Jennings.
1

1

In light of this information, the defendants ask the court to dismiss Jones’s other claims for lack

2

of prosecution under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Jones filed neither an opposition nor

3

a statement of non-opposition.

4

“If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with [the Federal Rules of Civil

5

Procedure] or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it.”

6

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). A district court’s decision to dismiss under this rule is informed by five

7

considerations: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s

8

need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy

9

favoring disposition of cases on their merits and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.”

10

Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779

11

F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)).

12

Here, the court has already dismissed the claims the defendants ask it to finally

13

dismiss, and Jones has elected not to pursue an amended complaint. She intends to pursue only

14

her first claim, the claim the court did not dismiss. Dismissal as requested would therefore be in

15

the public interest and would simplify management of this case’s docket. The first two factors

16

favor dismissal. The third is essentially neutral; the court is aware of no prejudice, considering

17

the claims in question have already been dismissed and plaintiff was given a chance to amend.

18

The fourth factor may appear at first to weigh against dismissal, but the court has already reached

19

the merits of the pleadings in question. Finally, in light of the time period allowed for

20

amendment and Jones’s decision not to oppose the current motion, dismissal is far from a drastic

21

resolution here.

22

In summary, of the five factors this court must consider, two favor dismissal, and

23

three are neutral at least. In the interest of clarity and the expeditious resolution of this case, the

24

motion is GRANTED. Jones may proceed on claim one under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

25

/////

26

/////

27

/////

28

/////
2

1
2

The hearing currently set for June 17, 2016 is VACATED, but the initial
scheduling conference currently set for the same day will proceed as scheduled.

3

This order resolves ECF No. 17.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

DATED: June 7, 2016.

6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3