Williams v. Perez et al

Filing 65

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 9/22/17. (sisS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

BRANDON TYANN WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

v.

Case No. 4:16-cv-04143-KAW
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Re: Dkt. No. 60

HECTOR PEREZ, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

Plaintiff Brandon Tyann Williams, proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit alleging numerous

14

civil rights violations in connection with the termination of her federally subsidized housing. On

15

June 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 37.)

16

On July 5, 2017, Defendants Theresa Muley and Linda Uribe (“Federal Defendants”) filed

17

a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 45.) On July 7, 2017, Richmond

18

Housing Authority also filed a motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 48.) Ms. Williams’s oppositions were

19

due on July 19 and July 21, 2017. On July 26, 2017, the Federal Defendants notified the

20

undersigned that they had been in communication with Ms. Williams, and that she said that she

21

needed additional time to file her opposition, and that they did not object to adjusting the briefing

22

schedule or hearing date to accommodate her. On August 2, 2017, the Court extended Plaintiff’s

23

deadline to serve her oppositions to August 16, 2017. (Dkt. No. 56.) In extending the briefing

24

schedule, Plaintiff was advised that the failure to timely oppose a motion may result in the

25

granting of the motion as unopposed and the dismissal of the case. Id. at 2. Ms. Williams did not

26

file either opposition nor did she file any other documents with the Court.

27
28

As a result, the Court again continued the hearing date on the motions to dismiss to
November 2, 2017, and ordered Plaintiff to show cause by September 18, 2017, why she did not

1

timely file her oppositions to the motions to dismiss, and why her case should not be dismissed for

2

failure to prosecute. (Dkt. No. 60 at 1.) Plaintiff was also ordered to file her oppositions to both

3

motions to dismiss by September 18, 2017. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff was again referred to Federal Pro

4

Bono Help Desk and “cautioned that the failure to timely respond to the second order to show and

5

the motions to dismiss will result in the lawsuit being dismissed without prejudice for failure to

6

prosecute.” Id. at 2. To date, Plaintiff has not filed a response to the order to show cause; she has

7

not filed oppositions to the pending motions to dismiss; and she has not otherwise communicated

8

with the Court.

9

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits the involuntary dismissal of an action or
claim for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. See Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

(1962) (“authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been

12

considered an ‘inherent power’”). Unless otherwise stated, a dismissal under Rule 41(b) “operates

13

as an adjudication on the merits.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

14

In light the foregoing, the case is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated: September 22, 2017
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2