Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00426/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00426-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited. 1

Case No. C 05-00426 JF

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

(JFLC1)

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JOSEPH MATTHEW JONES,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

ROSARIO MARINELLO, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 05-00426 JF

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 1

EXTENSION OF TIME

[re: docket no. 95]

Plaintiff Joseph Jones, proceeding pro se, seeks an extension of the time previously set by

the Court for filing a proposed amended complaint and supporting motion. For the reasons

discussed below, the request for an extension of time will be denied. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed the original complaint in the instant action on January 28, 2005. He filed a

first amended complaint (“FAC”) on June 8, 2005, alleging violations of his rights under the

Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, a pattern

and practice of constitutional violations, “illegally motivated misuse of government power,”

Case 5:05-cv-00426-JF Document 99 Filed 03/26/07 Page 1 of 5
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

Case No. C 05-00426 JF

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

(JFLC1)

violations of sections 51.7 and 52.1 of the California Civil Code, and various state law torts,

including assault, battery, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and

negligence. On August 4, 2005, this Court issued an order staying the instant proceedings

pending resolution of state criminal charges against Plaintiff arising from the same events that

form the basis of Plaintiff’s claims in the instant case. In the August 4, 2005 order, the Court

also deferred ruling on motions to strike and to dismiss the FAC. At a case management

conference on March 6, 2006, the Court lifted the stay and directed Plaintiff to file a proposed

second amended complaint (“SAC”) and a motion in support thereof not later than June 1, 2006.

On June 1, 2006, without filing a supporting motion as directed by the Court, Plaintiff

filed a proposed SAC that added his mother Alberta Jones as a plaintiff and also numerous

named and unnamed defendants. On August 11, 2006, the Court struck the SAC without

prejudice to a properly-noticed motion for leave to file the proposed pleading. Plaintiff filed the

motion on August 25, 2006, and the Court denied the motion on November 14, 2006. The Court

concluded that a substantial portion of the proposed complaint was barred by Heck v. Humphrey,

512 U.S. 477 (1994). The Court also concluded that the proposed complaint failed to allege

sufficient facts to support the claims not barred by Heck. The Court once again denied the

motion without prejudice and directed that any renewed motion for leave to amend be filed not

later than December 20, 2006. 

On November 17, 2006, Plaintiff moved to stay the instant proceedings during the

pendency of his appeal of his criminal conviction in state court. On December 22, 2006, the

Court took the motion under submission without oral argument and established a briefing

schedule for any renewed motion for leave to amend in the event that it were to deny the motion

to stay. The Court advised Plaintiff that failure to abide by this schedule might lead to dismissal

of this action. On January 22, 2007, the Court denied the motion to stay and again advised

Plainitff that pursuant to the briefing schedule, he was required to file any renewed motion to

amend his complaint by February 9, 2007. The Court also reminded Plaintiff again that failure to

abide by this schedule might lead to dismissal of this action. 

On February 8, 2007, Plaintiff moved to extend the February 9, 2007 deadline on the

Case 5:05-cv-00426-JF Document 99 Filed 03/26/07 Page 2 of 5
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

3

Case No. C 05-00426 JF

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

(JFLC1)

basis that illness had prevented him from preparing a renewed motion to amend his complaint. 

On February 16, 2007, over Defendants’s objection, the Court extended that deadline to March 2,

2007. On March 2, 2007, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to extend the deadline by another

thirty days. No opposition has been filed. The Court concludes that this motion is appropriate

for resolution without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A district court has authority to dismiss a plaintiff’s action because of failure to prosecute

or failure to comply with court orders. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370

U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962) (holding that a court’s authority to dismiss for lack of prosecution is

necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid

congestion in the calendars of the district courts); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th

Cir. 1992) (holding that a district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any

order of the court).

In determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with

court orders, a district court should consider five factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious

resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the

defendants; (4) the public policy favoring the disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the

availability of less drastic sanctions. In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994) (failure to

prosecute); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (failure to comply with court orders).

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff has not succeeded in filing an operative complaint in this action since the stay on

proceedings was lifted on March 6, 2006. The Court has advised Plaintiff repeatedly that failure

to abide by the Court-ordered schedule may lead to dismissal of the action. Plaintiff now moves

for an extension on the basis of illness. Plaintiff provides a photocopy of a doctor’s note

indicating that he was seen for tonsilitis in the emergency room of Barton Memorial Hospital,

South Lake Tahoe, California, on February 10, 2007. The doctor requests: “Please excuse from

work 2/10, 2/11, 2/12/07.” The Court concludes this evidence is insufficient to support yet

another extension of time. 

Case 5:05-cv-00426-JF Document 99 Filed 03/26/07 Page 3 of 5
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

 Plaintiff may submit (but not file) a proposed motion and a proposed amended 2

complaint along with his response to this order. The Court will assess the adequacy of any such

paper in deciding whether to dismiss the instant action.

4

Case No. C 05-00426 JF

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

(JFLC1)

The record reflects that Plaintiff repeatedly has been unable or unwilling to comply with

the Court’s orders. Defendants have been exposed to significant expense in defending this action

to date and additional extensions of time only will increase such expense. It is evident that

Plaintiff believes that the success of his action depends upon the success of his appeal of his

conviction and the lifting of any bar that Heck v. Humphrey may pose to his recovery of damages

from the defendants. If that is the case, the action should be dismissed without prejudice to

refiling upon the success of his appeal of his conviction in state court.

Prior to dismissing an action on its own motion, the Court is required to notify a pro se

litigant of the basis for dismissal and warn the litigant that dismissal is imminent. Ferdik, 963

F.2d at 1261. Dismissal of this action is imminent. Accordingly, Plaintiff will be granted an

opportunity to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the

Court’s order. Plaintiff may file a response to this order, not to exceed five pages, on or before

April 6, 2007. Defendants may file a reply, also not to exceed five pages, on or before April 11,

2007. The Court will then take the matter under submission without oral argument. 

2

IV. ORDER

Good cause therefor appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for an

extension is DENIED. 

DATED: March ___, 2007.

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-00426-JF Document 99 Filed 03/26/07 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Case No. C 05-00426 JF

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

David W. Balch dbalch@kahlaw.net, 

Jon R. Giffen jgiffen@kahlaw.net, jmaycock@kahlaw.net; dbalch@kahlaw.net 

Notice will be delivered by other means to:

Jeffrey I Bedell 

Kennedy Archer & Harray Attorneys at Law

24591 Silver Cloud Court

Suite 200

Monterey, CA 93940-5302

Alberta Rose Jones

1144 Tangerine Way

Sunnyvale, CA 94087

Joseph Matthew Jones

1144 Tangerine Way

Sunnyvale, CA 94087

Rosario Marinello

2266 South Main Street

Apt 165

Salinas, CA 93906

Case 5:05-cv-00426-JF Document 99 Filed 03/26/07 Page 5 of 5