Carter v. Foulk et al

Filing 14

ORDER DISMISSING CASE Without Prejudice for Failure to Prosecute. All pending motions are TERMINATED. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 5/19/09. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/21/2009) Modified on 5/22/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On March 27, 2009, the Court issued an Order entitled "Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend; Directing Plaintiff Carter to File Completed Non-Prisoner IFP Application; and Addressing Pending Motions," and gave Plaintiff thirty days from the date of the Order to file an amended complaint and to file a completed non-prisoner in forma pauperis (IFP) application. Plaintiff was warned that the failure to timely file an amended complaint would result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. He was also warned that the failure to timely file a completed non-prisoner IFP application would result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice for failure to file a completed IFP application or pay the filing fee. More than thirty days have passed since the Court directed Plaintiff to file his amended complaint and a completed IFP application, and he has not done so. To date, Plaintiff has not submitted any further pleadings in this case or otherwise communicated with the Court. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint in the above-captioned action is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The Court has rendered its final decision on this matter; therefore, this Order TERMINATES Plaintiff's case. The Clerk of the Court shall terminate all pending motions and close the file. When and if Plaintiff is prepared to pursue his claims, he may file a new civil rights action. The limitations period to file a 1983 action in California is two years, but it is tolled for up to two v. ED FOULK, et al., Defendants. / BILLY CARTER, Plaintiff, No. C 08-02795 SBA (PR) ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 years during a continuous period of incarceration. See Silva v. Crain, 169 F.3d 608, 610 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding, pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 340(3), that the limitations period for filing a 1983 action in California is one year); S.B. 688 (amending Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 340(3) and adding 335.1 to establish two-year residual limitations period for personal injury actions); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 352.1(a) (providing for an additional two years of tolling during a period of continual imprisonment). IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: 5/19/09 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge P:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.08\Carter2795.dismiss-FTA&DISIFP.wpd 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BILLY CARTER, Plaintiff, v. ED FOULK et al, Defendant. / Case Number: CV08-02795 SBA CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on May 21, 2009, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. Billy Ray Carter NA 206839-3 Napa State Hospital 2100 Napa Valley Highway Napa, CA 94558 Dated: May 21, 2009 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk P:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.08\Carter2795.dismiss-FTA&DISIFP.wpd 3

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?