Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00743/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00743-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

GLENN GOWER,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF'S 

OFFICE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-00743-KAW 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE; ORDER REASSIGNING 

CASE TO A DISTRICT JUDGE

This action was filed on February 19, 2014. (Dkt. No. 1.) Pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (2014), Plaintiff had 120 days to complete service of the 

complaint and summons on Defendants, such that June 19, 2014 was the last day to complete 

service or to file a Motion for Administrative Relief from the deadline pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-11. 

The summons, however, was never issued due to Plaintiff’s filing error involving the 

proposed summons, and Plaintiff never resubmitted the proposed summons as required by the 

Clerk’s Office. (Dkt. No. 4.) As a result of this deficiency, an initial case management scheduling 

order was never issued and the case management conference was not automatically scheduled. 

Upon discovery of this oversight, the initial case management conference was scheduled for 

January 12, 2016, but was ultimately continued to March 22, 2016 because Plaintiff had not 

resubmitted the proposed summons nor served the defendants 7 days prior to the case management 

conference date. (Dkt. Nos. 5 &8.)

On March 18, 2016, the undersigned issued an order to show cause why this case should 

not be dismissed for failure to comply with the deadline to complete service on Defendant or to 

file a Motion for Administrative Relief. (Dkt. No. 10.) Plaintiff was ordered to file a written 

response to this order by April 1, 2016. Id. To date, Plaintiff has not filed a response to the order 

Case 3:14-cv-00743-TEH Document 11 Filed 05/02/16 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

to show cause, and has not filed any other documents with the court, nor is there any indication 

that he has served the defendants.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits the involuntary dismissal of an action or 

claim for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. See Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 

(1962) (“authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been 

considered an ‘inherent power’”). Unless otherwise stated, a dismissal under Rule 41(b) “operates 

as an adjudication on the merits.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Accordingly, as Plaintiff has not consented to the undersigned, the Court reassigns this 

case to a district judge and recommends that the case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

for failure to prosecute.

Any party may file objections to this report and recommendation with the district judge 

within 14 days of being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The 

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

appeal the district court’s order. IBEW Local 595 Trust Funds v. ACS Controls Corp., No. C-10-

5568, 2011 WL 1496056, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2011).

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

Dated: May 2, 2016

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-00743-TEH Document 11 Filed 05/02/16 Page 2 of 2