Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00426/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00426-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited. 1

Case No. C 05-00426 JF

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(JFLC1)

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JOSEPH MATTHEW JONES,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

ROSARIO MARINELLO, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 05-00426 JF

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 1

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

[re: docket no. 99]

On March 26, 2007, the Court issued an order instructing Plaintiff Joseph Jones that

dismissal of his action was imminent and ordering him to show cause why the action should not

be dismissed for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with previous orders (“March 26th

Order”). Having considered the submissions of Plaintiff and the Defendants, the Court

concludes that the action should be dismissed without prejudice. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed the original complaint in the instant action on January 28, 2005. He filed a

first amended complaint (“FAC”) on June 8, 2005, alleging violations of his rights under the

Case 5:05-cv-00426-JF Document 107 Filed 04/16/07 Page 1 of 6
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

Case No. C 05-00426 JF

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(JFLC1)

Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, a pattern

and practice of constitutional violations, “illegally motivated misuse of government power,”

violations of sections 51.7 and 52.1 of the California Civil Code, and various state law torts,

including assault, battery, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and

negligence. On August 4, 2005, this Court issued an order staying the instant proceedings

pending resolution of state criminal charges against Plaintiff arising from the same events that

form the basis of Plaintiff’s claims in the instant case. In that order, the Court also deferred

ruling on Defendants’ motions to strike and to dismiss the FAC. At a case management

conference on March 6, 2006, the Court lifted the stay and directed Plaintiff to file a proposed

second amended complaint (“SAC”) and a motion in support thereof not later than June 1, 2006.

On June 1, 2006, without filing a supporting motion as directed by the Court, Plaintiff

filed a proposed SAC that added his mother Alberta Jones as a plaintiff and also added numerous

new defendants. On August 11, 2006, the Court struck the SAC without prejudice to a properlynoticed motion for leave to file the proposed pleading. Plaintiff filed the motion on August 25,

2006, and the Court denied it on November 14, 2006. The Court concluded that a substantial

portion of the proposed complaint was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). The

Court also concluded that the proposed complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to support

claims not barred by Heck. The Court directed that any renewed motion for leave to amend be

filed not later than December 20, 2006. 

On November 17, 2006, Plaintiff moved to stay the instant proceedings during the

pendency of his appeal of his criminal conviction in state court. On December 22, 2006, the

Court took the motion under submission without oral argument and established a briefing

schedule for any renewed motion for leave to amend in the event that it were to deny the motion

to stay. The Court advised Plaintiff that failure to abide by this schedule might lead to dismissal

of this action. On January 22, 2007, the Court denied the motion to stay and again advised

Plainitff that pursuant to the briefing schedule, he was required to file any renewed motion to

amend his complaint by February 9, 2007. The Court also reminded Plaintiff again that failure to

abide by this schedule might lead to dismissal of this action. 

Case 5:05-cv-00426-JF Document 107 Filed 04/16/07 Page 2 of 6
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

Case No. C 05-00426 JF

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(JFLC1)

On February 8, 2007, Plaintiff moved to extend the February 9, 2007 deadline on the

basis that illness had prevented him from preparing a renewed motion to amend his complaint. 

On February 16, 2007, over Defendants’ objection, the Court extended that deadline to March 2,

2007. On March 2, 2007, Plaintiff moved to extend the deadline again by another thirty days. 

No opposition was filed. The Court concluded that this motion was appropriate for resolution

without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). On March 26, 2007, the Court denied the motion

for a further extension and instructed Plaintiff that dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute

or to comply with the Court’s orders was imminent. The Court granted Plaintiff an opportunity

to show cause why the action should not be dismissed and stated that it would consider any

proposed complaint submitted prior to the deadline stated in the order. On April 6, 2007,

Plaintiff responded to the Court’s order but did not submit a proposed amended complaint. On

April 10, 2007, Defendants Robert McGee and the City of Pacific Grove responded to Plaintiff’s

submission. On April 13, 2007, Plaintiff submitted further argument in response to Defendants’

submission. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A district court has authority to dismiss a plaintiff’s action because of failure to prosecute

or failure to comply with court orders. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370

U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962) (holding that a court’s authority to dismiss for lack of prosecution is

necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid

congestion in the calendars of the district courts); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th

Cir. 1992) (holding that a district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any

order of the court). In determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute or failure to

comply with court orders, a district court should 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 the disposition of cases on their merits;

and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994)

(failure to prosecute); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (failure to comply with court

orders).

Case 5:05-cv-00426-JF Document 107 Filed 04/16/07 Page 3 of 6
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

 The response is styled as a “Motion for Reconsideration of an Extension of Time to 2

File Second Amended Complaint.” That motion states a hearing date of May 25, 2007, in an

apparent attempt to delay dismissal for another month and a half. Plaintiff seeks to extend the

deadline for filing an amended complaint to May 4, 2007. The documents filed by Plaintiff on

April 13, 2007 reply to what Plaintiff construes as Defendants’ opposition to this motion. 

4

Case No. C 05-00426 JF

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(JFLC1)

III. DISCUSSION

Having considered the five relevant factors articulated by the Ninth Circuit, the Court

concludes that dismissal of the instant action is appropriate. The public’s interest in the

expeditious resolution of litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket weigh heavily in

favor of dismissal. There has been extensive litigation in this case despite the fact that Plaintiff

has not succeeded in filing an operative complaint since the stay on proceedings was lifted on

March 6, 2006. Resolution of the action has been unreasonably delayed by Plaintiff, and its

continuation would prejudice defendants as they have “been required to expend significant sums

in defending this action,” Defendants’ Response 2, and will continue to have to do so if the Court

does not order a dismissal. The policy favoring dismissal on the merits provides little support for

allowing the action to continue, as it appears highly probable that Plaintiff’s claims either will be

barred by Heck v. Humphrey or will be found insufficient to survive a motion under Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12(b)(6). Finally, having provided the Plaintiff with numerous extensions of time and other

accommodations on the basis of his pro se status, the Court concludes that less drastic measures

would be neither productive nor appropriate.

Plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause does not address the concerns identified by

the Court in the March 26th Order. Plaintiff does not dispute the Court’s statement that it is 2

“evident that Plaintiff believes that the success of his action depends upon the success of his

appeal of his conviction and the lifting of any bar that Heck v. Humphrey may pose to his

recovery of damages from the defendants.” March 26th Order 4. While Plaintiff produces

further doctors’s notes asserting that he has been ill, these notes do not establish that he could not

have complied with the Court’s orders and prosecuted this action. Plaintiff’s numerous filings

Case 5:05-cv-00426-JF Document 107 Filed 04/16/07 Page 4 of 6
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

 Since Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court assumes that he himself drafted the 3

documents. A troubling alternative explanation is that Plaintiff may be receiving legal assistance

from a person who is not authorized to practice law. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 6125-26.

5

Case No. C 05-00426 JF

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(JFLC1)

during the period of his illness suggest that he had the ability to draft legal documents. The 3

doctors’s notes assert only that Plaintiff cannot work, and they also appear to be inconsistent. On

January 30, 2007, Dr. Lawrence Hooper, of Sunnyvale, CA, stated that Defendant would be

totally incapacitated until March 20, 2007, while an unidentified doctor, apparently in South

Lake Tahoe, CA, stated on February 10, 2007, that Plaintiff should be excused from work for

only three days due to tonsilitis. Moreover, if Plaintiff was totally incapacitated until March 27,

2007, he still had more than a week to complete an amended complaint before the April 6, 2007

deadline established by the March 26th Order. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the action

should be dismissed without prejudice to re-filing in the event that Plaintiff prevails on his appeal

of the underlying criminal conviction.

IV. ORDER

Good cause therefor appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the action is

DISMISSED without prejudice to re-filing in the event that Plaintiff prevails on his appeal in

state court. To the extent that the Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s prior orders, such

request is DENIED. 

DATED: April 16, 2007.

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-00426-JF Document 107 Filed 04/16/07 Page 5 of 6
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

6

Case No. C 05-00426 JF

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

David W. Balch dbalch@kahlaw.net, 

Jon R. Giffen jgiffen@kahlaw.net, jmaycock@kahlaw.net; dbalch@kahlaw.net 

Notice will be delivered by other means to:

Jeffrey I Bedell 

Kennedy Archer & Harray Attorneys at Law

24591 Silver Cloud Court

Suite 200

Monterey, CA 93940-5302

Alberta Rose Jones

1144 Tangerine Way

Sunnyvale, CA 94087

Joseph Matthew Jones

1144 Tangerine Way

Sunnyvale, CA 94087

Rosario Marinello

266 Reservation Road F-232

Marina, CA 93933

Case 5:05-cv-00426-JF Document 107 Filed 04/16/07 Page 6 of 6