Godfrey v. Oakland Police Department

Filing 25

ORDER Denying 21 STIPULATION and Proposed Order selecting ADR Process; Dismissing Case. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 7/12/2018. (kawlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/12/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LAVON GODFREY,
Plaintiff,

8
9

v.

10

OAKLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-cv-06560-KAW
ORDER DENYING STIPULATION
SELECTING ADR PROCESS;
DISMISSING CASE

Defendant.

12
13

On November 13, 2017, Plaintiff Lavon Godfrey filed this suit against Defendant Oakland

14

Police Department, asserting a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) On February 26,

15

2018, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, on the ground that Plaintiff failed to identify an official

16

policy or custom to support a Monell claim, and because negligence and intentional tort claims are

17

not enforceable under § 1983. (Dkt. No. 7.) On March 29, 2018, the Court granted Defendant's

18

motion to dismiss, finding that Plaintiff had failed to identify a policy or custom, or to allege

19

adequate facts in support of any such policy or custom. (Dkt. No. 18 at 4.) The Court also found

20

that Plaintiff's § 1983 claim failed to the extent it was based on state tort or negligence claims.

21

(Id.) The Court gave Plaintiff leave to amend her complaint, and required that any amended

22

complaint be filed by April 30, 2018. (Id. at 5.) The Court warned that "[f]ailure to timely file an

23

amended complaint that complies with this order may result in the dismissal of this action."

24

Plaintiff did not file her amended complaint. On May 9, 2018, the Court issued an order to

25

show cause, ordering Plaintiff to: "1) file an amended complaint that corrects the deficiencies

26

identified by the Court's March 29, 2018 order, and 2) respond to this order to show cause by

27

explaining why she did not file a timely amended complaint." (Dkt. No. 20 at 1.) Plaintiff's

28

response was due by May 29, 2018. The Court warned that failure to complete both tasks would

1
2

result in the Court dismissing Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
On May 25, 2018, Plaintiff signed a stipulation selecting an ADR process. (Dkt. No. 21.)

3

Plaintiff, however, did not file an amended complaint or respond to the May 9, 2018 order to show

4

cause. On June 14, 2018, the Court issued a second order to show cause, ordering Plaintiff to: "1)

5

file an amended complaint that corrects the deficiencies identified by the Court's March 29, 2018

6

order, and 2) respond to this order to show cause by explaining why she did not file a timely

7

amended complaint and response to the May 9, 2018 order to show cause." (Dkt. No. 24 at 2.)

8

Plaintiff's response was due by July 3, 2018. The Court again warned that failure to complete both

9

tasks would result in the Court dismissing Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice for failure to

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

prosecute.
As of the date of this order, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or responded to

12

the orders to show cause. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits the involuntary dismissal

13

of an action or claim for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. See Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S.

14

626, 630-31 (1962) (“authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has

15

generally been considered an ‘inherent power’”). Unless otherwise stated, a dismissal under Rule

16

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

17

Here, Plaintiff has failed to file her amended complaint, which was originally due on April

18

30, 2018, despite repeated warnings that her case would be dismissed. Accordingly, the Court

19

DENIES the ADR stipulation as moot and DISMISSES Plaintiff's case without prejudice for

20

failure to prosecute.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 12, 2018
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
2