Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02659/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02659-1/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DEANNA RAE PORTER WEESE-HEFT,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. GOVERNMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-02659-BLF 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

[Re: ECF 18]

Plaintiff Deanna Rae Porter Weese-Heft filed this pro se action on June 12, 2015, alleging 

that the United States, the DOJ, and the FBI (“Defendants”) caused her damage by not respecting 

the Constitution throughout her life. Compl., ECF 1. Plaintiff has failed to take any action in this 

case since October 20, 2015. In light of Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Court orders, on 

December 18, 2015, the Court issued an order to show cause and a notice of imminent dismissal to 

Plaintiff warning that failure to comply with Court orders would result in dismissal of this action 

with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). ECF 18. The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a response 

to the Order to Show Cause by January 21, 2016. Id. To date, Plaintiff has failed to respond. 

Accordingly, the Court hereby DISMISSES this action with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this action on June 12, 2015, alleging that she has “been damaged by the 

D.O.J. and F.B.I. and by them not respecting the Constitution of these United States and in fact my 

right to live by my son being tortured in Santa Clara County Juvinille [sic] Hall over years with no 

help from Federal entities named in this law suit [sic], upon their arrival.” Compl., ¶ 5. Plaintiff 

requests $100 billion in damages. Id. ¶ 6.

On August 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed a brief that may be characterized as an amended 

Case 5:15-cv-02659-BLF Document 19 Filed 01/29/16 Page 1 of 3
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

complaint. ECF 5. The document summarizes Plaintiff’s family history, appears to describe abuse 

of her son by county agencies, and mentions her own arrests, solitary confinement, and torture. Id. 

On August 14, 2015, Plaintiff filed a second brief that expands upon the same topics. ECF 7.

On August 25, 2015, Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd issued a Report and 

Recommendation, finding that Plaintiff failed to allege legally coherent theories of liability and 

recommending that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. ECF 9. On 

September 21, 2015, this Court adopted the Report and Recommendation and directed Plaintiff to 

file any amended pleading by no later than October 12, 2015. ECF 12.

On September 21, 2015, Plaintiff appealed the Dismissal Order. ECF 14. On October 20, 

2015, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal, ECF 15, and that order took effect on December 15, 

2015, ECF 16.

Because Plaintiff had not filed an amended complaint by the ordered deadline, nor taken 

any action in this case since the appeal was dismissed, on December 18, 2015, the Court issued an 

order to show cause by January 21, 2016 why this case should not be dismissed for failure to 

comply with court orders. To date, Plaintiff has not filed and served an amended complaint or 

responded to the Order to Show Cause.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows for involuntary dismissal of an action “[i]f 

the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order.” The Rule permits a 

court to dismiss an action sua sponte. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962). 

Before imposing dismissal as a sanction, “the district court must consider five 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 alternatives.’” Yourish v. Calif. Amplifier, 191 

F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th 

Cir.1986)).

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s orders, including the Dismissal Order, 

Case 5:15-cv-02659-BLF Document 19 Filed 01/29/16 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

which gave leave to amend, and the Order to Show Cause, which provided notice of imminent 

dismissal. These failures can serve as grounds for dismissal if the Henderson factors favor 

dismissal. See Yourish, 191 F.3d at 986. 

Here, four of the five Henderson factors strongly favor dismissal. Dismissal serves the 

public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation because Plaintiff’s inaction has stalled this 

case since September 2015. Plaintiff failed to file and serve an amended complaint within the 

allotted time, to seek an extension of time to amend, or to respond in any way to the Dismissal 

Order or the Order to Show Cause. With respect to the second factor, Plaintiff’s conduct has 

interfered with the Court’s need to manage its docket because Plaintiff has repeatedly ignored the 

Court’s orders by not filing an amended complaint within the time allotted, and by not responding 

to the Order to Show Cause. As to the third factor, failure to dismiss this action would prejudice 

Defendants, who are entitled to notice and resolution of Plaintiff’s claims. The fourth factor—the 

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—does not favor dismissal. Finally, as to 

the fifth factor, the Court sees little point in imposing less severe sanctions because Plaintiff has

shown no interest in complying with this Court’s orders. The Court’s Order to Show Cause 

expressly warned Plaintiff of the potential for imminent dismissal under Rule 41(b) and Plaintiff 

did not respond. “The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum—

either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the court that it will not do so—is properly 

met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.” Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 

1065 (9th Cir. 2004).

IV. ORDER

Accordingly, the record supports dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) and the 

Court hereby DISMISSES all claims against Defendants WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 29, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-02659-BLF Document 19 Filed 01/29/16 Page 3 of 3