Wycinsky v. City of Richmond et al
Filing
20
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION. Plaintiff's claims against defendant City of Richmond are dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff's claims against defendant Christopher Magnus a re dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the file and enter judgment in favor of the defendants. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 09/30/16. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2016)
1
2
3
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
JONATHAN WYCINSKY,
Plaintiff,
8
CITY OF RICHMOND, et al.,
Defendants.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
v.
9
10
Case No. 16-cv-02873-MMC
12
13
In the above-titled action, plaintiff alleges claims against two named defendants,
14
specifically, the City of Richmond (“the City”) and Christopher Magnus (“Magnus”). For
15
the reasons stated below, plaintiff’s claims against both defendants will be dismissed
16
pursuant to, respectively, Rules 12(b)(6) and 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil
17
Procedure.1
18
First, with respect to the City, by order filed August 2, 2016, plaintiff’s claims
19
against said defendant were dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
20
be granted; by the same order, plaintiff was afforded the opportunity to file, no later than
21
August 12, 2016, a First Amended Complaint, and was informed that if he did not do so,
22
the case would proceed only as against Magnus. Plaintiff has not filed an amended
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Additionally, the Court notes that plaintiff has repeatedly failed to comply with
court orders and otherwise prosecute his case. Plaintiff failed to comply with three orders
directing him to indicate whether he would consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate
judge, failed to respond to the City’s motion to dismiss, failed to respond to the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation to dismiss the case, failed to adhere to ADR
compliance deadlines, failed to appear at a regularly scheduled case management
conference, and failed to file a mandatory case management statement in advance of
such conference.
1
2
complaint.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s order filed August 2, 2016, to
3
the extent the above-titled action is brought against the City, the action is hereby
4
DISMISSED with prejudice, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
5
Second, with respect to Magnus, by order filed September 14, 2016, plaintiff was
6
directed to show cause, in writing and no later than September 28, 2016, why his claims
7
against said defendant should not be dismissed for failure to serve within the time
8
required by Rule 4(m). Plaintiff has not filed a response to the Court’s order.
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims against Magnus are hereby DISMISSED without
prejudice, pursuant to Rule 4(m).
In light of the above, the Clerk of Court is directed to close the file and enter
judgment in favor of defendants.
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16
Dated: September 30, 2016
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?