Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00224/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00224-3/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 No other Defendant has made an appearance in this action. 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YOLANDA MORALEZ, surviving )

spouse and legal representative of the )

Estate of JOSE L. MORALEZ, and )

legal representative of her minor )

children, KAELYN MORALEZ, and )

DUSTIN MORALEZ, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

CITY OF FRESNO, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F 06-0224 AWI SMS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT

CITY OF FRESNO’S MOTION TO

DISMISS AND DISMISSING

ACTION

(Documents #14, #15, & #16)

Plaintiffs Yolanda Moralez, Kaelyn Moralez, and Dustin Moralez (“Plaintiffs”) filed a

lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law. The court has federal question jurisdiction

over the federal causes of action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and supplemental jurisdiction over

the state law causes of action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Pending before the court is

Defendant City of Fresno’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure.

BACKGROUND

On February 27, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging constitutional violations and

state law violations stemming from the death of Jose L. Moralez. On March 24, 2006, Defendant

City of Fresno (“Defendant”) filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, a motion for a more 1

Case 1:06-cv-00224-AWI -SMS Document 19 Filed 07/25/06 Page 1 of 5
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

definite statement, and a motion to strike portions of the complaint. Plaintiffs did not respond to

Defendant’s motion or otherwise contact the court. 

On May 13, 2006, the court granted Defendant’s motion and dismissed the complaint

with leave to amend. The court found that Yolanda Moralez could not bring an action in pro se

on behalf of her minor children, Kaelyn Moralez and Dustin Moralez, because minors must be

represented by an attorney. The court found Yolanda Moralez could not bring an action in pro

se on behalf of the estate without further allegations. The court found that the complaint failed

to allege a due process violation because the complaint neither alleged how Defendants were

deliberately indifferent nor alleged that the unconstitutional actions were the result of an official

policy or custom of Defendant. The court dismissed Plaintiffs’ request for a declaratory relief

because it was duplicative of Plaintiffs’ civil rights claim. The court dismissed Plaintiffs’

allegations pursuant to California Civil Code § 52.1 that were premised on Jose L. Moralez’s

death because Section 52.1 cannot serve as a wrongful death statute. The court dismissed the

punitive damage request against Defendant because punitive damages are not available against a

municipality. Finally, the court dismissed the emotional distress claim because the basis of

Plaintiffs’ request was unclear. The court then dismissed the entire complaint with leave to

amend and directed Plaintiffs to file any amended complaint within thirty days. The court

warned Plaintiffs that failure to file an amended complaint may result in this action’s dismissal.

Other thirty days have passed, and Plaintiffs have not filed an amended complaint or

otherwise contacted the court.

On June 16, 2006, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant contends that it is entitled to entry of judgment

because Plaintiffs did not comply with the court’s order to file an amended complaint.

Plaintiffs did not file an opposition to Defendant’s motion.

On July 12, 2006, Defendant filed a reply brief.

Case 1:06-cv-00224-AWI -SMS Document 19 Filed 07/25/06 Page 2 of 5
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

 LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

(b) Involuntary Dismissal: Effect Thereof. For failure of the plaintiff to

prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of court, a defendant may

move for dismissal of an action or of any claim against the defendant. Unless the

court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies, a dismissal under this

subdivision and any dismissal not provided for in this rule, other than a dismissal

for lack of jurisdiction, for improper venue, or for failure to join a party under

Rule 19, operates as an adjudication upon the merits.

Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 41(b). Dismissal under Rule 41(b) is a sanction that the district court should

impose only in extreme circumstances. Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th

Cir. 2004); Dahl v. City of Huntington Beach, 84 F.3d 363, 366 (9 Cir. 1996). th

When a plaintiff, who has been given the opportunity to amend the complaint or have his

or her action dismissed, does nothing a Rule 41(b) dismissal is the appropriate sanction. 

Edwards, 356 F.3d at 1065. If a plaintiff refuses to take advantage of the court’s opportunity to

fix his or her complaint, a district court may convert the dismissal of the complaint into a

dismissal of the entire action. Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9 Cir. 2005). th

DISCUSSION

The court dismissed the complaint, with leave to amend, for Plaintiffs’ failure to state a

claim. The court warned Plaintiffs that failure to timely file an amended complaint would result

in this action’s dismissal. Over sixty days have passed since the court dismissed the complaint

with leave to amend and Plaintiffs have not filed an amended complaint or otherwise contacted

the court.

A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an

action or failure to obey a court order. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th

Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint). In

determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution or failure to obey a court order

the court must consider several factors, including: (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

Case 1:06-cv-00224-AWI -SMS Document 19 Filed 07/25/06 Page 3 of 5
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

defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the

availability of less drastic alternatives. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9 Cir. 1995); Ferdik, th

963 F.2d at 1260-61.

At this time, the court has no choice but to dismiss this action. No complaint is currently

on file, and this case cannot proceed without a complaint on file. Further, the original complaint

was properly dismissed for failure to state a claim. Cf. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9 Cir. th

2000) (if court determines that complaint fails to state claim, leave to amend may be granted to

extent that complaint’s deficiencies can be cured). The court cannot manage its docket if it

maintains cases in which plaintiffs fail to keep an operative complaint on file by filing an

amended complaint. The public’s interest in the expeditious resolution of litigation weighs

heavily in favor of dismissal of such cases so that the court’s limited resources may be spent on

cases in which the litigant is actually proceeding. Public policy favoring disposition of cases on

their merits also has little or no weight in actions where plaintiffs lack enough of an interest to

file an amended complaint. The public and the court have no interest in determining the truth or

falsity of the allegations that Plaintiffs might raise in an amended complaint if Plaintiffs never

file an amended complaint. The availability of less drastic sanctions has been considered, but

given that no complaint is on file, the court has no effective sanction but to close the case. The

court expressly warned Plaintiffs that their failure to file an amended complaint would result in

this action’s dismissal. Plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint or contact the court. 

Plaintiffs did nothing in response to the court’s order. The risk of prejudice to Defendants also

weighs in favor of dismissal because a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of

unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th

Cir. 1976). In addition, Defendant has asked that this action be dismissed. Thus, dismissal

pursuant to Rule 41(b) is warranted.

//

//

Case 1:06-cv-00224-AWI -SMS Document 19 Filed 07/25/06 Page 4 of 5
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 5

ORDER

Accordingly, based on the above memorandum opinion, the court ORDERS that:

1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint and for entry of judgment is

GRANTED;

2. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure; and 

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for Defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 25, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

9h0d30 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00224-AWI -SMS Document 19 Filed 07/25/06 Page 5 of 5