Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-07513/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-07513-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

SANDRA TORA HOLLANDSWORTH,

Plaintiff,

v.

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA, 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 4:18-cv-07513-KAW 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO DISMISS CASE; ORDER 

REASSIGNING CASE TO A DISTRICT 

JUDGE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 9, 14

On December 13, 2018, Plaintiff filed this civil action and application to proceed in forma 

pauperis. On February 27, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 

pauperis. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court then screened Plaintiff’s complaint and 

found it deficient, finding that Plaintiff had failed to set forth a “short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” (Dkt. No. 13 at 3.) The Court ordered Plaintiff 

to file an amended complaint that provided the legal and factual basis for all claims by March 27, 

2019. Id. The Court warned that the failure to do so would result in the case being reassigned to a 

district judge with the recommendation that the case be dismissed. Id.

On March 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed an administrative motion requesting that the deadline to 

file her amended complaint be extended to May 29, 2019, which was granted. (Dkt. Nos. 11 & 

13.) Plaintiff was referred to the Federal Pro Bono Project’s Help Desk for assistance. (Dkt. No. 

13 at 1.) Plaintiff did not file her amended complaint by the deadline, and, on June 6, 2018, the 

undersigned issued an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to 

prosecute. (Dkt. No. 14 at 1.) Plaintiff was given until June 28, 2019 to file both a response to the 

order to show cause and her first amended complaint. Plaintiff did neither. 

On July 17, 2019, the Court issued a second order to show cause. (Dkt. No. 15.) Plaintiff 

Case 4:18-cv-07513-YGR Document 16 Filed 08/22/19 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

was given until August 12, 2019 to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to 

prosecute, why she did not timely file the amended complaint, and why she did not timely respond 

to the first order to show cause. Id. at 1-2. She was also ordered to file the first amended 

complaint. Id. at 2. Plaintiff was re-referred to the Federal Pro Bono Project's Help Desk for 

assistance and was advised that the “[f]ailure to file both documents by the deadline will result in 

the Court reassigning the case to a district judge with the recommendation that the case be 

dismissed for failure to prosecute.” Id. To date, Plaintiff has not filed the first amended complaint 

or a response to the second order to show cause.

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, the Court REASSIGNS this case to the district court and RECOMMENDS 

that it 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); N.D. 

Civil L.R. 72-3. 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: August 22, 2019

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:18-cv-07513-YGR Document 16 Filed 08/22/19 Page 2 of 2