Bloch v. Facebook Inc.

Filing 8

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 10/18/17. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(sisS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/18/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MARILYN BLOCH,
Plaintiff,

8

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

9

v.

10

FACEBOOK INC.,
Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 4:17-cv-03803-KAW

12
13

Plaintiff Marilyn Bloch, proceeding pro se, filed this copyright infringement lawsuit

14

against Facebook for suspending her Facebook account, and is seeking monetary damages and the

15

restoration of her account. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1 at 3.) On August 7, 2017, the Court dismissed

16

Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). (Dkt. No. 6 at 1.)

17

The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint no later than August 31, 2017. Id. at

18

2.

19

Plaintiff did not timely file an amended complaint. On September 8, 2017, the

20

undersigned issued an order to show cause, and ordered Plaintiff to file her amended complaint on

21

or before October 4, 2017, and respond to the order to show cause by explaining why she did not

22

timely file an amended complaint and why this case should not be dismissed for failure to

23

prosecute. (Dkt. No. 7.) Plaintiff was referred to Federal Pro Bono Help Desk for assistance “in

24

determining whether she has a viable claim against Facebook.” Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff was advised

25

that the Help Desk takes phone appointments, so her residence in Florida would not preclude her

26

ability to access legal assistance. Id. at 1. Plaintiff was cautioned that the “[f]ailure to file both

27

documents by the deadline may result in the case being dismissed for failure to prosecute.” Id.

28

To date, Plaintiff has not filed a response to the order to show cause nor has she filed an

1
2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated: October 18, 2017
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

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