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)

Download PDF
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

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?