Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06692/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06692-0/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

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WESLEY AND VANHDAO FLOWERS,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE CITY OF FRESNO, et al., 

Defendants.

1:04-CV-6692 OWW LJO

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER:

(1) DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT (Docs. 48 & 51); AND

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (DOC. 57)

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendants, the City of Fresno (“City”), the Redevelopment

Agency of the City of Fresno (“RDA”), and the County of Fresno

(“County”), move to dismiss the amended complaint of Wesley and

Vanhdao Flowers (“Plaintiffs”) for failure to timely file their

second amended complaint in violation of this court’s order,

dated February 10, 2005. Docs. 35, 48 & 51. Plaintiffs,

appearing pro se, filed oppositions to these motions on March 24,

2005 and March 29, 2005. Docs. 49, 50 & 53. 

Plaintiffs have also moved for “Judgment by Default” on

April 15, 2005, on the ground that Defendants failed to timely

file a responsive pleading. Plaintiffs noticed this motion for

hearing on April 25, 2005, the same date as the hearing on

Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Defendants object on the grounds

that Local Rule 78-230(b) requires motions to be set for hearing

“not less than twenty eight (28) days after personal service and

Case 1:04-cv-06692-OWW -LJO Document 66 Filed 05/03/05 Page 1 of 8
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

filing of the motion....” See Doc. 57, filed Apr. 20, 2005. 

II. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint on December 13,

2004, alleging that Defendants violated their Fourth Amendment

rights by improperly upholding a city building official’s

administrative abatement of conditions on their property. Doc.

1. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to

state a claim. Docs. 28 & 30, filed Dec. 30, 2004. On February

7, 2005, the parties appeared in court for oral argument, and

Plaintiffs’ complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. During

the hearing, Plaintiffs were informed that they would be served

with a written order of dismissal and that if they wished to

proceed they would have to file an amended complaint within

twenty days of the date of service of that order. On February

10, 2005, the court issued an order explaining the reasons for

dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint. The Order stated:

Plaintiffs are afforded one opportunity to

amend the Complaint against the City of

Fresno, the County of Fresno, the

Redevelopment Agency, and any individual

defendants. Any amended complaint shall be

filed within twenty (20) days following

service by the clerk of this decision and

shall be properly served in accordance with

the requirements of law. 

Doc. 35. (Emphasis added). 

Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on March 17, 2005. 

Doc. 37. That complaint is not a picture of clarity. Their

first cause of action appears to assert a claim under 41 U.S.C. 

§ 1985 and the Fourth Amendment in connection with a nuisance

abatement proceeding that may have involved a search of

Plaintiffs’ property. Doc. 37 ¶¶ 9-18. Plaintiffs’ second cause

Case 1:04-cv-06692-OWW -LJO Document 66 Filed 05/03/05 Page 2 of 8
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

of action is even less clearly defined. It appears to allege

some kind of conspiracy on the part of housing code enforcement

officials to violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights through

fraud and false statements. Id. at ¶¶ 19-36. Plaintiff’s

complaint also suggests that “Due Process” violations occurred in

connection with a housing code enforcement hearing. Id. at ¶¶

37-43. Plaintiffs mention numerous other provisions of law in an

apparent attempt to state additional claims, but it is extremely

difficult to discern any legal or factual basis for such claims. 

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

In deciding whether to grant a motion to dismiss, a court

must “take all of the allegations of material fact stated in the

complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable

to the nonmoving party.” Rodriguez v. Panayiotou, 314 F.3d 979,

983 (9th Cir. 2002). A motion to dismiss for failure to state a

claim is disfavored and rarely granted: “[a] complaint should not

be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can

prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle

him to relief.” Van Buskirk v. CNN, Inc., 284 F.3d 977, 980 (9th

Cir. 2002) (citations omitted); see also Gilligan v. Jamco Dev.

Corp., 108 F.3d 246, 249 (9th Cir. 1997) (stating that the issue

is not whether plaintiff will ultimately prevail, but whether

claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claim). 

Courts have a “duty ... to construe pro se pleadings

liberally.” Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir.

2001); Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980)). The pleadings of

pro se litigants are “held to less stringent standards than

Case 1:04-cv-06692-OWW -LJO Document 66 Filed 05/03/05 Page 3 of 8
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

4

formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hughes, 449 U.S. at 10

(quotation omitted). However, “a liberal interpretation of a

[pro se] complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim

that were not initially pled.” Pena v. Gardner, 976 F.2d 469,

471 (9th Cir. 1992). 

IV. ANALYSIS

A. Dismissal under Rule 41(b) for failure to follow an

order of the court. 

Defendants assert that the Order, filed on February 10,

2005, required Plaintiffs to file the amended complaint by March

7, 2005, twenty business days later. Plaintiffs filed their

amended complaint on March 17, 2005.

The February 10, 2005 Order states that “[a]ny amended

complaint shall be filed within twenty (20) days following

service by the clerk of this decision.” Doc. 35. (Emphasis

added). Plaintiffs maintain that the courtroom deputy clerk

failed to serve them with a copy of the Order. Plaintiffs point

out that no accompanying certificate of service was ever

available or recorded as required by Local Rule 5-135. 

Under the court’s new electronic filing system, orders

issued by the court are electronically served upon lawyers who

have registered for electronic service. The electronic system

generates a dated “electronic document stamp” that provides

definitive proof of electronic service for those who are

electronically served. Pro se parties, however, are served with

copies of court orders via United States Mail. For these

parties, the electronic system simply generates a receipt that

states “notice will be delivered by other means to” the pro se

Case 1:04-cv-06692-OWW -LJO Document 66 Filed 05/03/05 Page 4 of 8
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 The courtroom deputy entered a minute order on February

24, 2005 and modified it on February 25, 2005. The minute order

stated, “As plaintiff has been granted leave to file an amended

complaint the scheduling conference is continued to 4/29/2005 at

08:45 AM in Courtroom 2 (OWW) before Judge Oliver W. Wanger.”

5

party. See Exhibit A. The court’s computer system keeps a

record of every mailing that is actually sent out. In this case,

it appears that the deputy clerk docketed the February 10, 2005

order granting leave to amend, but never served the order by mail

on Plaintiffs. 

Plaintiffs assert that they did receive a copy of the minute

order issued February 24, 2005,1 which they assumed was the

court’s “written explanation” for granting Defendants’ motions to

dismiss. Plaintiffs then prepared an amended complaint and filed

it on March 17, 2005, “without an opportunity to review” the

Order. See Docs. 49 & 53. Given that the first “written order”

received by Plaintiff was the minute order, the 20 day filing

period did not begin to run until February 24. Allowing 3 days

for mailing as is required under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

6(e), Plaintiffs’ filing was not due until Monday, March 21,

2005. The second amended complaint was timely filed. 

Even if Plaintiffs had filed their complaint late,

Defendants are not necessarily entitled to dismissal. Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that a “defendant may move

to dismiss an action” if the plaintiff fails to comply “with

these rules or any order of court.” However, “[d]ismissal under

Rule 41(b) is a sanction, to be imposed only in extreme

circumstances.” Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1063

(9th Cir. 2004). “[I]n order for a court to dismiss a case as a

Case 1:04-cv-06692-OWW -LJO Document 66 Filed 05/03/05 Page 5 of 8
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 determining whether a defendant has been

prejudiced, we examine whether the plaintiff’s actions impair the

defendant’s ability to go to trial or threaten to interfere with

the rightful decision of the case.” Malone v. United States

Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 131 (9th Cir. 1987). The Flowers’

inadvertent delay in this case does not threaten the truthseeking process. Rather, dismissal at this stage would interfere

with the decision of the case on the merits.

6

sanction, the district court must 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 disposition of

cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic

alternatives.” Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983,

990 (9th Cir. 1999). In this case, assuming for the sake of

argument that Plaintiffs’ complaint had been filed ten days late,

such an inconsequential delay would not endanger the public’s

interest in the expeditious resolution of disputes, nor would it

impede the court’s ability to manage its busy docket. Moreover,

Defendants have made absolutely no showing of prejudice.2 The

appropriate, less drastic alternative would be to allow

Plaintiffs leave to amend out of time. 

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motions to dismiss Plaintiffs’

second amended complaint is under Rule 41(b) is DENIED. 

B. MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs move for judgment by default on the grounds that

Defendants failed to timely file responsive pleadings. 

Plaintiffs are correct that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12

provides that a defendant must file an appropriate responsive

pleading “within 20 days after being served with the summons and

Case 1:04-cv-06692-OWW -LJO Document 66 Filed 05/03/05 Page 6 of 8
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

7

complaint.” Defendant may file an answer, see Rule 12(a)(1)(A),

or any one of six types of motions to dismiss listed under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b). In this case, Defendants

did not file an answer or any motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b). 

Instead they filed motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(b), which provides that “defendant may move for

dismissal of an action or of any claim against the defendant.” 

But nothing in Rule 12 or Rule 41 provides that a motion under

Rule 41(b) operates as a responsive pleading that satisfies Rule

12. Defendants may have failed to file a timely answer.

However, Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ motion for default

because Plaintiffs filed the motion on April 15, 2005 and noticed

it for a hearing on April 25, 2005. Local Rule 78-230(b)

requires most motions to be set for hearing “not less than twenty

eight (28) days after personal service and filing of the

motion....” Plaintiffs failed to provide the requisite 28 day

notice under this rule. In some cases, when a motion is already

noticed for hearing, a party may file a “related” motion on a

shortened time frame:

Related or Counter-Motions. Any counter-motion or other

motion that a party may desire to make that is related

to the general subject matter of the original motion

shall be served and filed with the Clerk in the manner

and on the date prescribed for the filing of

opposition....

Local Rule 78-230(e)(emphasis added). Oppositions “shall be

filed with the Clerk not less than fourteen (14) days preceding

the noticed hearing date.” Local Rule 78-230(c). Plaintiff’s

opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss was due on April 11,

2005 (14 days prior to the April 25, 2005 hearing date). 

Plaintiffs filed their motion for default judgment on April 15,

Case 1:04-cv-06692-OWW -LJO Document 66 Filed 05/03/05 Page 7 of 8
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

8

2005. Even if this motion were considered a “related motion”

under Local Rule 78-230(e), Plaintiffs failed to file it by the

deadline for filing an opposition. 

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above: 

(1) Defendants’ motions to dismiss are DENIED; and

(2) Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment is DENIED. 

The parties agreed at oral argument that Plaintiffs would be

afforded ten (10) days from service of this written order to

attach exhibits to their second amended complaint. In turn,

Defendants would have ten (10) additional days to file their

response. 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 3, 2005

/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER 

______________________________

 Oliver W. Wanger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06692-OWW -LJO Document 66 Filed 05/03/05 Page 8 of 8