Edwardo Stultz v. John Doe #1, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
The court considered the plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint or respond to a prior order granting leave to amend. The court dismissed the civil action without prejudice and directed the Clerk to close the case.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of civil action for failure to prosecute“So, this civil action is dismissed without prejudice.” | agree with court The court applied Rule 41(b) to dismiss the case because the plaintiff failed to comply with a court order granting leave to amend. The order cites Edwards v. Marin Park, a Ninth Circuit case, which supports the proposition that failure to respond to a court order can be met with dismissal. The facts recited (failure to file amended complaint by extended deadline and failure to respond) support the application of the rule. The dismissal is without prejudice, which is a standard sanction for failure to prosecute that allows for refiling if the statute of limitations has not run. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise and directly applies a cited Ninth Circuit authority to the specific procedural failure described. It correctly identifies the relevant rule (Rule 41(b)) and the factual basis (failure to amend or respond). The reasoning is sufficient for a procedural dismissal order.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 || Edwardo STULTZ, Case No.: 3:24-cv-1840-AGS-LR > Plaintity, | ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 6 vs. ACTION FOR FAILURE TO 7 || John DOE #1, ct al., PROSECUTE 8 Defendants. 9 10 The Court previously dismissed the complaint in this case without prejudice, but 11 || granted plaintiff Edwardo Stultz leave to amend by April 4, 2025. (ECF 4.) The Court 12 ||subsequently extended Stultz’s deadline to amend to May 2, 2025. (ECF 6.) Since then, 13 || beyond filing a notice of address change on June 23, 2025, Stultz has not responded to the 14 || dismissal order nor filed an amended complaint. 15 Stultz’s failure to respond to the court’s order “is properly met with the sanction of 16 Rule 41(b) dismissal.” See Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004). 17 || So, this civil action is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close this case. 18 || Dated: January 9, 2026 20 Hon. Andrew G. Schopler United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 □□□ .. 10AN □□□□□□