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)

Download PDF
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?