Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00222/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00222-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
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

ERNESTO CONTAWE,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00222-JD 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

Re: Dkt. No. 61

Before the Court is defendant County of San Mateo’s motion to dismiss the case pursuant 

to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. No. 61. The Court finds the motion 

suitable for disposition without oral argument under Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), grants the motion on 

the papers, and dismisses the case.

BACKGROUND

On April 21, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ prior motions 

to dismiss. Dkt. No. 56. The federal defendants were dismissed from the case altogether for 

various pleading deficiencies. The order made clear that the only possible basis for federal 

jurisdiction in this case was plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983. The Court found 

insufficient, and consequently dismissed, the § 1983 claims against the County of San Mateo, but 

plaintiff was given one final opportunity to amend his complaint, by July 19, 2016.

While the Court found that plaintiff had sufficiently alleged § 1983 claims against the 

County Doe defendants in this case, the Court ordered plaintiff to identify and serve those Doe 

defendants by July 19, 2016. Given that this case was filed on January 15, 2015, this was a 

generous extension of the 90-day deadline that otherwise would have applied under Rule 4(m) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Case 3:15-cv-00222-JD Document 65 Filed 09/14/16 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

Plaintiff neither amended his complaint nor served any County Doe defendant by the July 

19, 2016 deadline set by the Court. 

DISCUSSION

Under Rule 41(b), “the district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any 

order of the court.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). The rule also 

authorizes dismissal for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or to comply with the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). “[T]he district court must weigh the following factors in 

determining whether a Rule 41(b) dismissal is warranted: (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.” Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010) 

(quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). The Henderson factors “are 

‘not a series of conditions precedent before the judge can do anything,’ but a ‘way for a district 

judge to think about what to do.’” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig. (In re 

PPA), 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). Dismissal is appropriate “where at 

least four factors support dismissal . . . or where at least three factors ‘strongly’ support 

dismissal.” Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998).

Analysis of the first two Henderson factors strongly points toward dismissal. “[T]he 

public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.” Yourish v. Cal. 

Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). The Court’s need to manage its docket also weighs 

in favor of dismissal. Non-compliance with procedural rules and the Court’s orders wastes 

“valuable time that [the Court] could have devoted to other . . . criminal and civil cases on its 

docket.” Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261.

The Court finds that here, the fifth factor -- the availability of less drastic sanctions -- also 

favors dismissal. Plaintiff has been given multiple opportunities to amend his complaint, and the 

Court has further addressed the deficiencies in his prior complaints expressly and in detail. Dkt. 

Nos. 32, 47, 56. As noted above, plaintiff was also given a generous extension of his deadline to 

identify and serve the Doe defendants who he had named from the very beginning of this case. 

Case 3:15-cv-00222-JD Document 65 Filed 09/14/16 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

See Dkt. No. 1. Further, the Court expressly noted that plaintiff would be “given one final 

opportunity to amend.” Dkt. No. 56; see Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262 (“a district court’s warning to a 

party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal can satisfy the consideration 

of alternatives requirement.”). Last but not least, the consequence of plaintiff’s failure to follow 

the Court’s orders is that there is neither a validly stated § 1983 claim against the County of San 

Mateo, nor are there any defendants in the case for whom plaintiff has stated a sufficient § 1983 

claim against whom he can proceed. In this context, there is no case left over which the Court can 

properly exercise federal subject matter jurisdiction. It goes without saying that “[f]ederal courts 

are courts of limited jurisdiction,” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 

(1994), and “federal courts have an independent obligation to ensure that they do not exceed the 

scope of their jurisdiction.” Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011).

To close the loop on the analysis of the Henderson factors, the Court finds that even if the 

third and fourth factors might arguably weigh against dismissal, on balance, an involuntary 

dismissal under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules is the appropriate course in this situation.

CONCLUSION

The case is dismissed and the file will be closed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 14, 2016

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00222-JD Document 65 Filed 09/14/16 Page 3 of 3