Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02090/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02090-3/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 - 07cv2090

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUSSO BAILEY,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv2090 JM(BLM)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS PURSUANT TO RULE

41(B) 

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF JUSTICE; ALLEN J. PRECKEL; CITY

OF EL CAJON; M. BEVAN; SAN DIEGO

COUNTY; DONNIE DUMANUS;

WILLIAM KOLENDER ,

Defendants.

Defendants City of El Cajon and M. Bevan (collectively “Defendants”) move to dismiss all

claims asserted against on the ground that Plaintiff has failed to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).

Plaintiff Russo Bailey opposes the motion. 

On June 25, 2008 the court granted Defendants motion to dismiss all claims contained in the

First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) with 20 days leave to amend. Plaintiff has failed to file an

amended complaint. In his Opposition to the present motion, Plaintiff generally argues that he need

not set forth additional allegations as, accordingly to Plaintiff, the June 25, 2008 Order is “vacated.”

(Oppo. at p.9:12). The June 25th order, in combination with this court’s March 18, 2006 order,

informed Plaintiff of the complaints’ deficiencies and granted leave to amend. Plaintiff, as master of

his complaint, apparently believes that the FAC adequately states claims arising under 42 U.S.C.

Case 3:07-cv-02090-JM-BLM Document 46 Filed 10/27/08 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 - 07cv2090

§1983. 

Rule 41(b) authorizes the court to dismiss an action for failure to comply with any court order.

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff’s non-compliance with an order of

dismissal with leave to amend is grounds for dismissal of an action under Rule 41(b). Yourish v.

California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 988 (9th Cir. 1999). The court considers the following factors to

determine whether a Rule 41(b) dismissal is appropriate: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious

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

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

availability of less drastic sanctions. Bautista v. Los Angeles county, 216 F.2d 837, 841 (9th Cir.

2000). Here, this case, commenced on October 31, 2007, is nearly one year old and there is presently

no valid complaint on file. The case is no closer to a resolution on the merits than it was one year ago.

While public policy favors resolution of matters on the merits, the complaint fails to state a claim

against Defendants. Further, given the lengthy delay in prosecuting this action, Defendants are

prejudiced by the unreasonable delay in this action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th

Cir. 1976). Finally, this court has advised Plaintiff that the failure to amend the complaint to state a

claim “may result in the dismissal of these claims with prejudice.” (June 25, 2008 Order). 

In sum, the court grants the Rule 41(b) motion to dismiss with prejudice. The Clerk of Court

is instructed to dismiss City of El Cajon and M. Bevan as parties to this action, with prejudice and

without leave to amend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 27, 2008

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:07-cv-02090-JM-BLM Document 46 Filed 10/27/08 Page 2 of 2