Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00343/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00343-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

WENDY PINON-GUTIERREZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, et 

al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-00343-KJM-AC 

ORDER 

Plaintiff Wendy Pinon-Gutierrez filed her complaint in this case against the 

California Highway Patrol, Highway Patrol Officers Layton and Brown, and several Doe 

defendants. ECF No. 1. 

In June 2015, the court granted the parties’ stipulated request to dismiss the claims 

against the California Highway Patrol. See Stip., ECF No. 9; Minute Order, ECF No. 10. 

In September 2015, the court granted Officer Layton’s motion to dismiss the claim 

against him under California Civil Code section 52.1 (the Bane Act). ECF No. 14. The court also 

warned plaintiff “that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) is applicable to Doe defendants” and 

provides that “the court must dismiss defendants who have not been served within 120 days after 

the filing of the complaint unless good cause is shown.” Id. at 2 n.1. 

Case 2:15-cv-00343-KJM-AC Document 24 Filed 07/07/16 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

In November 2015, the court ordered service to be completed on Officer Brown by 

December 9, 2015. ECF Nos. 19 & 20. Service has not been completed on Officer Brown. 

On June 29, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation requesting “dismissal of this mater 

against Nick Layton with prejudice.” ECF No. 23. Despite their reference only to the claims 

against Officer Layton, the parties reported they had “reached a resolution of this matter” 

generally. See id. 

The court therefore orders as follows: 

(1) The claims against the Doe defendants and Officer Brown are dismissed for 

failure to prosecute without prejudice, as service has not been completed as provided by Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 4, as noted in this court’s previous orders. See, e.g., Chambers v. 

NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991) (a district court may dismiss abandoned claims on its own 

motion); In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 

2006) (listing the criteria the court considers when deciding whether to dismiss). 

(2) Due to the parties’ negotiated resolution, this matter is dismissed with 

prejudice against Officer Layton, each party bearing his or her own costs. 

(3) This order CLOSES THE CASE. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: July 6, 2016 

Case 2:15-cv-00343-KJM-AC Document 24 Filed 07/07/16 Page 2 of 2