Back v. American Red Cross et al

Filing 29

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 11/8/2017. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

FAYE BACK,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 4:17-cv-02225-KAW

v.

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
Re: Dkt. No. 28

AMERICAN RED CROSS, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

On September 13, 2017, the Court dismissed Plaintiff Faye Back’s complaint with leave to

14

amend. (Dkt. No. 23.) Plaintiff did not timely file a first amended complaint. On October 16,

15

2017, the Court continued the case management conference to December 19, 2017, and, as there

16

was no operative complaint, issued an order to show cause. (Dkt. No. 28.) Specifically, Plaintiff

17

was ordered to file the first amended complaint on or before November 3, 2017, and respond to

18

the order to show cause to explain why she did not timely file the amended complaint and why

19

this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Id. at 1. Plaintiff was advised that the

20

“[f]ailure to timely respond to th[e] order to show cause and file the first amended complaint may

21

result in this case being dismissed for failure to prosecute.” Id.

22

In issuing the order to show cause, Plaintiff was again referred to the Federal Pro Bono

23

Project’s Help Desk, and the Court identified some of the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s initial

24

complaint, including that certain relief sought—namely a “pristine guard of nine [C]aucasians”—

25

could not be awarded. Id. at 2. She was also advised that she needed to clearly identify which

26

causes of action were being alleged against each named defendant. Id.

27
28

To date, Plaintiff has not filed a response to the order to show cause, she has not filed her
first amended complaint, and she has not otherwise communicated with the Court.

1

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits the involuntary dismissal of an action or

2

claim for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. See Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

Dated: November 8, 2017
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2