Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01408/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01408-6/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DORE DEVINE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

)

FRESNO COUNTY, GARY ZOMALT )

CATHI HUERTA, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F 05-1408 AWI LJO

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF

TO FILE AN AMENDED

COMPLAINT AND SHOW CAUSE

WITHIN TWENTY DAYS WHY

THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED

BACKGROUND

On March 2, 2006, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

On March 13, 2006, Defendants County of Fresno, Gary Zomalt, and Cathi Huerta filed a

motion to dismiss. On August 25, 2006, the court granted the motion to dismiss. Specifically,

the court ordered that the first and second causes of action were dismissed with prejudice as to

Zomalt and Huerta in their official capacities and without prejudice in their individual capacities. 

The court dismissed the fourth cause of action concerning a cover up with prejudice and the

remainder was dismissed without prejudice. The third, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth causes of

action were dismissed without prejudice. The court then ordered that any amended complaint be

filed within thirty days. The court warned Plaintiff that failure to file an amended complaint

would result in dismissal of this action.

Case 1:05-cv-01408-AWI-LJO Document 42 Filed 11/14/06 Page 1 of 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 2

When Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint, on October 3, 2006, Defendants

County of Fresno, Zomalt, and Huerta filed a motion to dismiss this action for Plaintiff’s failure

to file an amended complaint in compliance with the court’s order. 

On October 13, 2006, Plaintiff’s attorney filed a declaration. The declaration states that

it is Plaintiff’s understanding that the action against Defendant government entities is not

available. The declaration then states that along with the County of Fresno and its employees,

Plaintiff also sued private individuals, including Defendants Renee Ballin, Glynda Maroney, and

Tony Madden. The declaration asks that the causes of action against these private individuals

not be dismissed, and these remaining causes of action be remanded to state court. Plaintiff

never filed a formal opposition to the motion to dismiss. 

DISCUSSION

Defendants Ballin, Maroney, and Madden have not made an appearance in this action and

were not part of the motion to dismiss that resulted in the dismissal of the complaint on August

25, 2006. However, on August 25, 2006, the court dismissed the complaint with leave to

amend. The eighth cause of action for wrongful death was dismissed. Nothing in the court’s

August 25, 2006 order stated or implied that the complaint would proceed on state law causes of

action against Defendants Ballin, Maroney, and Madden. The August 25, 2006 order dismissed

the operative complaint and provided Plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended complaint. 

 The court warned Plaintiff that failure to timely file an amended complaint would result in this

action’s dismissal. 

Over thirty days have passed and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. A court

may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure

to obey a court order. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)

(dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint). In

determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution or failure to obey a court order

the court must consider several factors, including: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious

Case 1:05-cv-01408-AWI-LJO Document 42 Filed 11/14/06 Page 2 of 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 3

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 alternatives. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9 Cir. 1995); Ferdik, th

963 F.2d at 1260-61.

If Plaintiff had failed to file an amended complaint and also not contacted the court, the

court would have no choice but to dismiss this action. However, a liberal reading of Plaintiff’s

October 13, 2006 filing indicates that Plaintiff believes there is a complaint on file and the

complaint was only dismissed as to the government actors. While the court’s August 25, 2006

order dismissed the entire complaint, leaving nothing for this court to remand to state court,

Plaintiff has expressed a desire to proceed against Defendants Ballin, Maroney, and Madden on

state law claims. Because Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint appears to be based

on Plaintiff’s misunderstanding regarding the scope of the August 25 2006 order and not

Plaintiff’s intention to abandoned this action entirely, the court will give Plaintiff one additional

opportunity to file an amended complaint.

ORDER

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to file an amended complaint within twenty days of

this order’s date of service and show cause why this entire action should not be dismissed. If

Plaintiff desires to only proceed against Defendants Ballin, Maroney, and Madden on state law

claims, Plaintiff is directed to file a motion to remand along with her amended complaint. 

Plaintiff is forewarned that failure to file an amended complaint and failure to show cause will

result in this action’s dismissal as to all Defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 13, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

9h0d30 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01408-AWI-LJO Document 42 Filed 11/14/06 Page 3 of 3