Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00763/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00763-4/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

JAMAL AUSTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00763-HSG 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Pro se Plaintiff Jamal Austin filed a complaint on February 19, 2015, alleging two causes 

of action: (1) “Assault/Battery (Gross Negligence),” and (2) “Professional Medical Malpractice In 

RE: Injured Inmate Medical Care.” Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff named the County of Alameda, police 

officers Glen Tafolla and Frank Gonzalez, and various prison medical providers as Defendants. 

Id.

On July 2, 2015, the Court granted in part the motion filed by Defendants County of 

Alameda, Glenn Tafolla and Frank Gonzalez to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. Dkt. No. 17.1 

Following a written reminder and an extension of time, Plaintiff filed his second amended 

complaint on August 10, 2015. Dkt. Nos. 18, 20.

On August 31, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s second amended 

complaint and noticed a hearing for October 8, 2015. Dkt. No. 24. On September 30, 2015, 

Plaintiff filed a letter stating that he would be unable to attend the October 8 hearing because he 

 

1

The Court mailed Plaintiff a copy of the July 2 Order, Dkt No. 17-1, but Plaintiff states that he 

never received it, see Dkt. Nos. 27, 33, 37. Even if it is true that Plaintiff did not receive a copy of 

the July 2 Order, that does not excuse his multiple failures to appear in this case. Plaintiff 

concedes that he received copies of each of the court orders directing him to appear, yet failed to 

comply with them.

Case 4:15-cv-00763-HSG Document 41 Filed 11/13/15 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

lacked proper identification, had “no funds,” and was “under health care provider restrictions.” 

Dkt. No. 27. In response, the Court mailed Plaintiff a letter allowing him to enter the courthouse 

without identification. Dkt. No. 29. Plaintiff nevertheless failed to appear at the October 8 

hearing. Dkt. No. 30.

At the October 8 hearing, the Court set a case management conference for October 20, 

2015 and mailed Plaintiff another letter allowing him to enter the courthouse without 

identification. Dkt. No. 31. Defendants represent that they attempted to contact Plaintiff in 

preparation for the case management conference, but he was “unreachable and unresponsive to 

defense counsel’s telephone messages.” Dkt. No. 32. Once again, Plaintiff failed to appear at the 

October 20 case management conference. Dkt. No. 35.

On October 21, 2015, the Court issued an order to show cause why the case should not be 

dismissed for failure to prosecute and set a telephonic hearing for November 10, 2015. Dkt. No. 

34. Plaintiff submitted a letter claiming that it is “untrue” that he refuses to participate in the 

litigation, and repeating that he is “currently without funds” and subject to unspecified health care 

provider restrictions. Dkt. No. 37. 

At the November 10 hearing on the order to show cause, Plaintiff yet again failed to 

appear. Dkt. No. 39. The Court initiated a telephone call to Plaintiff consistent with the procedure 

described in the order to show cause, but Plaintiff did not answer. The Court left a voicemail 

message with the direct telephone number to reach the Court and asked Plaintiff to call back to 

make his appearance, but he never responded.

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 4:15-cv-00763-HSG Document 41 Filed 11/13/15 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

Plaintiff has failed to make any of his court-ordered appearances, respond to opposing 

counsel’s communications, and otherwise participate in this litigation. The Court finds that 

Plaintiff has demonstrated that he is unable or unwilling to adequately prosecute this case. 

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The clerk shall close 

the file and terminate all pending motions. Should Plaintiff choose to refile his claims, the Court 

strongly encourages him to consult with the pro se Legal Help Center, either by calling 415-782-

8982 or by signing up in the appointment book located on the table outside the door of Room 

2796, 15th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 13, 2015

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:15-cv-00763-HSG Document 41 Filed 11/13/15 Page 3 of 3