Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03114/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03114-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Tort Claim

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JIMMY LEE DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-03114-JSC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff Jimmy Lee Davis (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brings this action against the 

City of San Francisco. The Court previously granted Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis. (Dkt. No. 5 at 1.) At that time, the Court also evaluated Plaintiff’s Complaint under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Finding that it failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), 

failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and—to the extent that Plaintiff intended 

to allege only a claim for slander—lacked a basis for federal jurisdiction, the Court dismissed 

Plaintiff’s Complaint with leave to amend. (Id.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended 

complaint by August 19, 2015, and cautioned Plaintiff that failure to file an amended complaint 

may result in automatic dismissal. (Id. at 4.) That deadline has passed, but as of the date of this 

Order, Plaintiff still has not filed an amended complaint. Rule 41 accords a district court 

discretion to dismiss a plaintiff’s action because of his failure to prosecute, to comply with any 

order of the court, or to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., Hearns v. 

San Bernardino Police Dep’t, 530 F.3d 1124, 1129 (9th Cir. 2008); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 

1258 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal of a pro se prisoner’s civil rights action where the 

plaintiff failed to comply with the court’s order to file an amended pleading), cert. denied, 506 

U.S. 915 (1992); Nevijel v. Northcoast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981) (“A 

Case 3:15-cv-03114-JSC Document 6 Filed 09/02/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

complaint which fails to comply with [Rule 8(a)] may be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 

[R]ule 41(b).”). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE why this action 

should not be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Plaintiff shall file a 

written response to this Order by September 16, 2015. If Plaintiff fails to file a response by that 

date, this action will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 1, 2015

________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-03114-JSC Document 6 Filed 09/02/15 Page 2 of 2