Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02841/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02841-2/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

LYNDA MAYE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF SONOMA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-02841-KAW 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO DISMISS ACTION WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE; ORDER REASSIGNING 

CASE TO A DISTRICT JUDGE

On August 14, 2014, the Court dismissed Plaintiff Lynda Maye’s complaint with leave to 

amend and denied her application to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice. (Dkt. No. 4.) 

The Court ordered Plaintiff to file both a first amended complaint and an amended IFP 

application, or pay the filing fee, no later than September 26, 2014. Id. Plaintiff did not file an 

amended complaint, nor did she file an amended IFP application or pay the filing fee.

On November 26, 2014, the Court issued an order to show cause to Plaintiff to explain 

why she did not timely file her amended complaint and why this case should not be dismissed for 

failure to prosecute. (Dkt. No. 7.) The Court also ordered that she file an amended complaint and 

file either an amended IFP application or pay the filing fee. Id. The date for responding to the 

order to show cause, filing an amended complaint, and an amended IFP application was January 9, 

2015. Id. Further, the Court continued the case management conference until March 17, 2015.

Plaintiff did not respond to the OSC nor did she file any documents in connection with her 

case. On March 17, 2015, the Court held a case management conference, but Plaintiff did not 

appear.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits the involuntary dismissal of an action or 

claim for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. See Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 

Case 3:14-cv-02841-EMC Document 9 Filed 04/07/15 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

(1962) (“authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been 

considered an ‘inherent power’”). Unless otherwise stated, a dismissal under Rule 41(b) “operates 

as an adjudication on the merits.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

As there is no operative complaint in this action, and Plaintiff has not consented to the 

undersigned, the Court reassigns this action to a district judge and recommends that Plaintiff’s 

case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

Any party may file objections to this report and recommendation with the District Judge 

within 14 days of being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The 

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

appeal the District Court's order. IBEW Local 595 Trust Funds v. ACS Controls Corp., No. C-10-

5568, 2011 WL 1496056, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2011).

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

Dated: April 7, 2015

______________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-02841-EMC Document 9 Filed 04/07/15 Page 2 of 2