Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-05448/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-05448-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTONIO CORTEZ BUCKLEY,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 14-cv-05448-YGR 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Re: Dkt. No. 84 

Plaintiff Antonio Cortez Buckley, proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action against 

deputy sheriffs for the County of San Mateo. On July 29, 2016, defendants moved to dismiss the 

complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) based on plaintiff’s alleged failure to 

prosecute his action. (Dkt. No. 84.) In support of their motion defendants submitted evidence 

showing that plaintiff did not comply with Magistrate Judge Beeler’s order directing plaintiff to 

respond to defendants’ requests for production (see Dkt. No. 80) and did not appear at a settlement 

conference in front of Magistrate Judge Vadas (see Dkt. No. 82). 

Plaintiff’s response to defendants’ motion was due on or before August 12, 2016. Plaintiff 

failed to respond by the deadline. Then, on August 17, 2016, the Court issued a warning to plaintiff 

that it was considering dismissing his case for failure to prosecute and ordering him to file a written 

response by September 6, 2016 showing cause why defendants’ motion to dismiss should not be 

granted and the action dismissed. (Dkt. No. 85.) The Court further warned plaintiff that his failure to 

file a response would deemed an admission that the case should be dismissed as a result of his failure 

to prosecute under Rule 41(b). As of the date of this Order, plaintiff has not responded to defendants’ 

motion or this Court’s order directing him to respond. Plaintiff has not filed any documents with the 

Court since July 1, 2016. (See Dkt. No. 77.) 

Case 4:14-cv-05448-YGR Document 89 Filed 09/16/16 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 

Pursuant to Rule 41(b), the Court may dismiss the action for failure to prosecute or to comply 

with a court order. Dismissal is appropriate where the failure to comply is unreasonable. McKeever 

v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1991). The Court should afford the litigant prior notice of its 

intention to dismiss. See Malone v. United States Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 133 (9th Cir. 1987). 

In this case, the Court warned plaintiff in its prior order dated August 17, 2016 that it would 

grant defendants’ motion to dismiss his lawsuit due to his failure to prosecute this action. Plaintiff has 

continued to miss deadlines and to date has not met his obligation to respond to defendants’ motion. 

Furthermore, it has been more than two months since plaintiff has communicated with the Court. 

Accordingly, the Court concludes it is in the interests of justice and judicial efficiency to dismiss this 

action pursuant to Rule 41(b). In that regard, defendants’ motion is GRANTED IN PART. Defendants’ 

motion is DENIED IN PART to the extent defendants request monetary sanctions against plaintiff. 

This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute. 

This Order terminates Docket Number 84 and terminates this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: September 16, 2016 

 _________________________________________

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:14-cv-05448-YGR Document 89 Filed 09/16/16 Page 2 of 2