Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-00789/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-00789-4/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

ANDREA JONES, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-00789-HSG 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On July 26, 2019, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ amended 

complaint. Dkt. No. 34. The Court granted Plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint 

within 28 days. Id. The deadline for Plaintiffs to file the second amended complaint passed, and 

on August 26, 2019, the Court issued an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed 

for failure to prosecute. Dkt. No. 35. In Plaintiffs’ September 4, 2019 response to the Court’s 

order to show cause, Plaintiffs indicated that they will not amend the complaint and seek a 

dismissal with prejudice and entry of judgment in favor of Defendants. Dkt. No. 36. 

When a plaintiff has declined amendment of her complaint in favor of appealing the 

dismissal, the court should dismiss the action with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6). See Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6). The Clerk 

shall enter judgment in favor of Defendants. Both parties shall bear their own costs of suit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 9/5/2019

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:19-cv-00789-HSG Document 37 Filed 09/05/19 Page 1 of 1