Rossmann v. Wojcicki
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
The court considered the status of the action after the plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee or file a renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis as ordered. The court dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the prior order.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the action without prejudice“Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE this action in its entirety for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court’s June 10, 2019 Order.” | agree with court The court correctly applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which allows a court to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders. The record indicates the plaintiff was given a specific deadline to pay fees or renew the IFP motion, and the court explicitly warned of dismissal if the plaintiff failed to act. The plaintiff did not act within the deadline. Therefore, the dismissal follows logically from the procedural history and the cited rule. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It cites the specific rule (Rule 41(b)) and a binding Ninth Circuit case (Lira v. Herrera) that supports the court's authority to dismiss for failure to prosecute. The factual basis for the dismissal (failure to pay fees or renew IFP motion after a specific deadline and warning) is clearly stated. There are no significant gaps in the reasoning for this type of procedural dismissal.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRUD ROSSMANN, Case No.: 3:19-CV-00014 JAH (NLS)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 13 v. 14 SUSAN WOJCICKI, ET AL., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On June 10, 2019, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma 19 Pauperis (“IFP”) and ordered Plaintiff to either pay the filing fee or file a renewed motion 20 to proceed IFP no later than June 21, 2019. See ECF No. 10. The Court explicitly stated 21 that “[s]hould Plaintiff fail to file a renewed motion to proceed IFP and correct the 22 deficiencies in his Complaint identified by the Court within the time provided, the Court 23 may dismiss this civil action without leave to amend.” Id. (emphasis in the original). 24 Following the Court’s Order, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, ECF No. 12, and shortly 25 after voluntarily dismissed the appeal. See ECF No. 20. Plaintiff has not filed a renewed 26 motion to proceed IFP or payed the filing fee. See generally Docket. Accordingly, 27 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT 28 PREJUDICE this action in its entirety for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with 1 || the Court’s June 10, 2019 Order. See Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005). 2 || The Clerk of Court SHALL CLOSE the file. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: October 8, 2019 . tt 5 jen Janis L. Sammartino 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28