Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-00459/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-00459-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SMILEY J. HARRIS,

Plaintiff, No. C 07-0459 PJH

v. ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION, 

AND HOUSING AGENCY, et al.,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

Plaintiff Smiley J. Harris filed this action on January 23, 2007, and also filed a

request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), and a motion for preliminary

injunction. On April 2, 2007, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, alleging nine causes

of action, including claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution, in

violation of the United States and California Constitutions, against ten defendants.

On April 17, 2007, the court issued a 24-page order dismissing the first amended

complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) for failure to state a claim and lack of subject

matter jurisdiction, and denying the IFP request and the motion for preliminary injunction. 

The dismissal was with leave to amend, and the court provided detailed instructions

regarding amendment.

On May 15, 2007, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, alleging twelve causes

Case 4:07-cv-00459-PJH Document 24 Filed 08/31/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

of action, against ten defendants, and also filed a second motion for preliminary injunction. 

While plaintiff followed the court’s instructions regarding amendment to some extent, he did

not eliminate the defendants and claims that had been previously dismissed with prejudice.

On May 30, 2007, the court issued a 17-page order dismissing the second amended

complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), and denying the motion for preliminary

injunction. In the order, the court again went through the complaint claim by claim, and

defendant by defendant, and clearly set forth what plaintiff was required to allege in any

further amended complaint in order to survive another dismissal.

On June 29, 2007, plaintiff filed the third amended complaint, alleging twelve causes

of action, against thirteen defendants. The third amended complaint differed little from the

second amended complaint, other than the addition of defendants. In particular, despite

the court’s clear and explicit dismissal with prejudice of certain claims and defendants,

plaintiff re-alleged nearly every claim as before, and even added new defendants. 

On July 5, 2007, the court issued an order dismissing the third amended complaint. 

The order stated that plaintiff would be given one more opportunity to file an amended

complaint, and provided clear and specific instructions regarding amendment. The court

warned plaintiff that failure to amend the complaint in accordance with the court’s

instructions would result in dismissal of the action with prejudice. 

On July 24, 2007, plaintiff filed a fourth amended complaint, alleging eleven causes

of action, against fifteen defendants. The fourth amended complaint is almost identical to

the third amended complaint, except that it adds defendants and eliminates one cause of

action, and also substitutes a prayer for “any further and other relief this court deems just

and proper” for the previous prayer for damages and injunctive relief. Notwithstanding all

the court’s previous instructions regarding amending the complaint, the fourth amended

complaint asserts claims that are time-barred and frivolous, against defendants who are

immune from suit.

When a complaint is filed IFP, it must be dismissed prior to service of process if it is

frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary damages from defendants

Case 4:07-cv-00459-PJH Document 24 Filed 08/31/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

who are immune from suit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Franklin v. Murphy, 745

F.2d 1221, 1226-27 (9th Cir. 1984). A complaint may also be subject to dismissal for

failure to state a claim when an affirmative defense appears on its face. Jones v. Bock,

127 S.Ct. 910, 921 (2007). When a complaint is dismissed under § 1915(e), the plaintiff

should be given leave to amend the complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies,

unless it is clear from the face of the complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by

amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 

In addition, district courts have inherent powers to control their dockets and may

impose sanctions, including dismissal, in the exercise of that discretion. Hamilton Vopper &

Steel Corp. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 898 F.2d 1428, 1429 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Chambers

v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991). Dismissal is an appropriate sanction for failure to

follow the orders of the court. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

The Ninth Circuit allows dismissal under Rule 41(b) only after the district court has

weighed the following 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 sanctions. See Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir.

2000). In this case, the court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this

litigation and the court’s interest in managing its docket weigh in favor of dismissal with

prejudice, as plaintiff has, through three iterations of his complaint, steadfastly refused to

amend the complaint in accordance with the court’s orders. 

The third factor, the risk of prejudice to the defendants also weighs in favor of

dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay

in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The

fourth factor, the public policy favoring disposition of case on their merits, is greatly

outweighed by the other factors favoring dismissal. Finally, a court’s warning to a party that

his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies the “consideration of

alternatives” requirement. Ferdick v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992);

Case 4:07-cv-00459-PJH Document 24 Filed 08/31/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

see also Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 132-33 & n.1 (9th Cir. 1987)

(warning that action may be dismissed as appropriate sanction is considered less drastic

alternative sufficient to satisfy last factor).

In accordance with the foregoing, the court finds that this action must be

DISMISSED with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 31, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-00459-PJH Document 24 Filed 08/31/07 Page 4 of 4