Yocom v. Grounds et al

Filing 75

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. ***Civil Case Terminated.*** Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong on 11/25/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/25/2013)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5
6
7

No. C 11-05741 SBA (PR)

MICHAEL ALAN YOCOM,

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN RANDY GROUNDS, et al.,

8
9

Defendants.

/

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

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

On September 30, 2013, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' motion to
dismiss Plaintiff's complaint on the ground that it violated the federal joinder rules. (Dkt. 74.)
Specifically, the Court determined that the complaint violated Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
18(a) and 20(a)(2) because it raised unrelated claims of retaliation, due process violation, and
deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against different sets of Defendants in an attempt to
argue multiple suits in one case. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to raise one of his three claims in
an amended complaint to be filed within twenty-eight days from the date of the Order. The Court
further instructed Plaintiff that he could bring the other two claims in two separate, new lawsuits.
Plaintiff was warned that his failure to timely file an amended complaint would result in the
dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute.
The time for Plaintiff to file his amended complaint has passed, and no amended complaint
has been filed. The action is thus subject to dismissal. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.3d 1258, 1260
(9th Cir. 1992).
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 Clerk

1

of the Court shall enter judgment, terminate all pending motions as moot, and close the file.1

2
3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

11/25/2013
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1

27

If and when Plaintiff is prepared to pursue his claims, he may file a new civil rights action or,
in this particular situation, three separate, new civil rights actions for each of his aforementioned three
claims. The limitations period to file a § 1983 action in California is two years, but it is tolled for up
to two 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).

28

G:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.11\Yocom5741.dismiss(noAC).wpd

24
25
26

2