Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-04064/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-04064-2/pdf.json

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

---

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 1

 Plaintiff names “All 10 Districts” and their “Special Education Program Directors.”

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Roberta Simmons,

Plaintiff,

 v.

Santa Cruz County Dep’t of Education, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

NO. C 07-04064 JW 

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH

PREJUDICE

Roberta Simmons (“Plaintiff”), in pro per, brings this putative class action against the Santa

Cruz County Department of Education1 and the Santa Cruz County Office of Education (“SCCOE”)

(collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff invokes the No Child Left Behind Act (“NCLBA”), 20

U.S.C. 6301 et seq. as a basis for the Court’s jurisdiction. On January 14, 2008, the Court conducted

a hearing Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiff did not appear. Counsel for Defendants was

present. In light of the Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss but

granted Plaintiff leave to amend. (hereafter, “January 25 Order,” Docket Item No. 31.)

In its January 25 Order, the Court explicitly ordered Plaintiff to file and serve her Amended

Complaint by February 15, 2008. The Court warned that failure to comply with its Order would

result in a dismissal of the action with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Case 5:07-cv-04064-JW Document 33 Filed 04/18/08 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

Procedure. To date, Plaintiff has failed to file the required Amended Complaint to inform

Defendants and the Court of its subject matter jurisdiction.

A district court has the authority to dismiss a case for lack of prosecution pursuant to its

inherent authority and Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Link v. Wabash R.

Co., 370 U.S. 626 ( 1962). Rule 41(b) states in pertinent part: "For failure of the plaintiff to

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

dismissal of an action or of any claim against the defendant. . . . [A] dismissal under this subdivision

. . . operates as an adjudication upon the merits." Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). "This power is necessary to

prevent undue delay in the disposition of pending cases, docket congestion, and, the possibility of

harassment of a defendant." Medeiros v. U.S., 621 F.2d 468, 470 (1st Cir. 1980). 

In determining whether to dismiss for lack of prosecution, generally the court considers: (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. Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.2d

393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998) (internal quotations omitted); See also Al- Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d

1381, 1384 (9th Cir. 1996). The Ninth Circuit will affirm dismissal where at least four factors

support dismissal, or where at least three factors “strongly” support dismissal. Yourish v. Cal.

Amplifier, 191 F.2d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). 

The court may dismiss a case sua sponte for lack of prosecution by the plaintiff. Hamilton

Copper & Steel Corp. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 898 F.2d 1428 (9th Cir. 1990). Sua sponte dismissal

requires a “close focus” on consideration of “less drastic alternatives” and whether or not there has

been a “warning of imminent dismissal of the case.” Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 274 (9th Cir.

1992).

Under the Al-Torki factors, the Court finds good cause to dismiss this action with prejudice.

In addition to Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute, the Court had previously expressed its concern

regarding its subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s sole basis for jurisdiction is the NCLBA.

Case 5:07-cv-04064-JW Document 33 Filed 04/18/08 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

2

 See Coachella Vally Unified School Dist. v. State of California, 2005 WL 1869499 at *2

(N.D. Cal. Aug 05, 2005); Blanchard ex rel. Blanchard v. Morton School Dist., 2006 WL 2459167 at

*4 (W.D. Wash. Aug 25, 2006); Alliance For Children, Inc. v. City of Detroit Public Schools, 475 F.

Supp. 2d 655, 658 (E.D. Mich. Feb 15, 2007); Catapult Learning, Inc. v. Board of Educ. of City of

St. Louis, 2007 WL 2736271, *4 (E.D. Mo. Sept 17, 2007); ); Holder v. Gienapp, 2007 WL 952039

(D. N.H. 2007) ; Marinnie v. Palmyra Board of Education, 2007 WL 894211 (D. N.J. 2007);

Dunleavy v. The State of New Jersey, 2006 WL 3780673 (D. N.J. 2006); Ass'n of Community

Orgs.for Reform Now v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 269 F. Supp. 2d 338 (S.D. N.Y. 2003);

Fresh Start Academy v. Toledo Bd. of Educ., 363 F. Supp. 2d 910 (N.D. Ohio 2005). 

3

Although the Ninth Circuit has not yet addressed the issue of whether the NCLBA confers a private

right of action, district courts in this circuit and others have held that there is no private right of

action under the NCLBA.2

 Since Plaintiff’s sole basis for jurisdiction is the NCLBA, the Court

found that Plaintiff does not have standing to bring suit under the NCLBA.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS this case dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: April 18, 2008 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-04064-JW Document 33 Filed 04/18/08 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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Matthew Joseph Tamel mtamel@ndkylaw.com

Mark E. Davis mdavis@ndkylaw.com

Roberta E. Simmons

900 Capitola Avenue #4

Capitola, Ca 95010

Dated: April 18, 2008 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Elizabeth Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:07-cv-04064-JW Document 33 Filed 04/18/08 Page 4 of 4