Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01469/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01469-7/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TOMMY ALLEN; BROOKE ALLEN (a )

minor), by and through her legal )

representative TOMMY ALLEN, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

FRESNO CITY POLICE OFFICERS )

DERIK KUMAGAI and VALERIE )

DUNN; FRESNO POLICE DETECTIVE )

ROBERT LINCOLN; FRESNO )

COUNTY SHERIFF DEPUTIES )

CHRISTIAN CURTICE, JARED )

WILLIAMSON, and ROMEO )

GRAJEDA; UNKNOWN LAW )

ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS; and )

COUNTY OF FRESNO, CALIFORNIA, )

)

Defendants )

____________________________________)

CV F F-06-1469 AWI SMS

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS AND

RELATED ORDERS

Doc. # 43

In this action by plaintiffs Tommy Allen and Brooke Allen (“Plaintiffs”) for damages

and declaratory relief for violation of civil rights against defendants County of Fresno and

several individual law enforcement officers (collectively, “Defendants”), Defendants have

moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ action for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with an

order of the court. For the reasons that follow, Defendants’ motion will be denied without

prejudice.

The first amended complaint (“FAC”) was filed in this case on February 4, 2007. 

Defendants moved to dismiss the FAC on February 14, 2007. On June 14, 2007, the court

granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss and granted leave to file an amended complaint within

Case 1:06-cv-01469-AWI -SMS Document 52 Filed 12/26/07 Page 1 of 3
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

60 days. The 60-day period for the filing of an amended motion to dismiss ran on or about

August 13, 2007. No amended complaint was filed during the time allowed. On September

20, 2007, Defendants moved to dismiss the action with prejudice for failure to prosecute and

failure to follow an order of the court. Plaintiffs did not file an opposition to the motion to

dismiss within the time period allowed. The matter was taken under submission as of

September 26, 2007. 

On October 8, 2007, Plaintiffs’ attorney, Kevin Little, filed a document titled

“Plaintiffs’ Request for Limited Additional Time to Oppose Pending Motion and/or Cure

Default.” Doc. # 48. Defendants filed a responsive pleading opposing Plaintiffs’ request on

October 17, 2007. The court notes that, due to the unavailability of the Magistrate Judge, the

next scheduling conference is now set for February 26, 2008, before Magistrate Judge

Snyder.

Defendants move that this action be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the inherent

powers of the court for failure to obey the court’s order to file an amended complaint within

the time period allowed. Where a party seeks to sanction non-compliance pursuant to the

court’s inherent authority, the party must be shown to have “‘engaged in bad faith or willful

disobedience of a court’s order.’ [Citation].” Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir.

2001) (citing Chambers, 501 U.S. at 46-47). Dismissal of an action is the most severe

penalty, and is authorized only in ‘extreme circumstances.” Fjelstad v. American Honda

Motor Co., Inc., 762 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th cir. 1985). The drastic sanctions of dismissal or

default judgment may only be imposed if there is wilfulness, fault or bad faith. See Sigliano

v. Mendoza, 642 F.2d 309, 310 (9th Cir. 1981) (“Where the drastic sanctions of dismissal or

default are imposed, however, the range of discretion is narrowed and the losing party’s noncompliance must be due to willfulness, fault or bad faith”). 

In this case Defendants have alleged wilfulness, but not bad faith. Also, the court

notes there is no allegation of prejudice to Defendants’ ability to defend their case. Based on

Case 1:06-cv-01469-AWI -SMS Document 52 Filed 12/26/07 Page 2 of 3
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

representations made to this court in this and other cases being handled by Kevin Little

(“Little”), the court is aware of limitations on Little’s ability to practice that have been

occasioned by a medical condition, the exact nature of which is unknown to the court. Based

on these representations, the court concludes that Little’s failure to prosecute or to obey an

order of the court is not “willful” to the extent that imposition of the drastic sanction of

dismissal would be appropriate at this time. 

ORDERS

The court hereby grants a continuation of the deadline to file an amended complaint

until January 18, 2008. Little is hereby cautioned that no further extensions of time will be

granted for any reason whatsoever. If Little feels he will not be able to comply with the

court’s order to file an amended complaint by January 18, 2008, he shall so notify the court in

advance of that date and a limited opportunity will be granted for substitution of attorney or

hiring of co-counsel. The parties shall attend the scheduling conference currently set before

Magistrate Judge Snyder on February 26, 2008. Little is cautioned that any non-stipulated

request to postpone the scheduling conference will not be granted and failure to attend the

scheduling conference will result in dismissal of this action with prejudice. Little is also

cautioned that, consistent with other orders of this court regarding limitations on his ability to

practice as a consequence of any medical condition he may have, the court will be unwilling

to excuse any further delays in this case that are not agreed upon by the parties or noticed to

this court and served on Defendants’ counsel at least ten (10) days prior to the date of any

delay or postponement. Defendants may renew the instant motion to dismiss this action with

prejudice for good cause shown at any time after the scheduling conference on February 26,

2008.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 21, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01469-AWI -SMS Document 52 Filed 12/26/07 Page 3 of 3