Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-05448/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-05448-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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 

ANTONIO CORTEZ BUCKLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, ET AL.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-05448-YGR 

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE 

TO PROSECUTE

Plaintiff Antonio Buckley proceeds pro se in this action against the County of San Mateo, 

Sherriff Greg Munks, and eight deputy sheriffs. On April 30, 2015, defendant County of San 

Mateo filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit, and for a more definite statement. (Dkt. No. 30.) 

Mr. Buckley did not file any response papers pursuant to his obligations under this Court’s Local 

Rule 7-3(a)1by his deadline of May 14, 2015. The Court issued an Order on May 28, 2015 

warning Mr. Buckley that the Court was considering dismissing his lawsuit for “failure to 

prosecute” and directing him to file his papers no later than June 12, 2015. (Dkt. No. 28.) Mr. 

Buckley sought an extension of time to file his response (Dkt. No. 36), and the Court granted him 

an extension until July 13, 2015. (Dkt. No. 39.)

Mr. Buckley again failed to comply with his obligations to meet deadlines and keep the 

lawsuit moving forward. As of the date of this Order, Mr. Buckley has not filed his response to 

defendant’s motion to dismiss, nor has he filed any other documents since June 11, 2015. 

 

1

The Court’s Civil Local Rules may be accessed for free at: 

http://cand.uscourts.gov/localrules/civil 

Case 4:14-cv-05448-YGR Document 42 Filed 07/23/15 Page 1 of 2
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

Pursuant to Rule 41(b), a district court may sua sponte dismiss an action for failure to 

prosecute or to comply with a court order. See Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 633 (1962); 

McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1991). But such a dismissal should only be 

ordered when the failure to comply is unreasonable. See Id. A district court should afford the 

litigant prior notice of its intention to dismiss. See Malone v. United States Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 

128, 133 (9th Cir. 1987). 

In this case, the Court warned Mr. Buckley in its prior Order dated May 28, 2015 that it 

was considering dismissing his lawsuit due to his failure to prosecute this action. Mr. Buckley has 

continued to miss deadlines and to date has not met his obligation to respond to defendant’s 

motion. Furthermore, it has been more than a month since plaintiff has communicated with the 

Court. Accordingly, it is in the interests of justice and judicial efficiency to dismiss this action 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. 

This action is therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute. 

This Order terminates Case Number 14-cv-5448. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 23, 2015 

______________________________________ 

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:14-cv-05448-YGR Document 42 Filed 07/23/15 Page 2 of 2