Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02873/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02873-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Richmond
Defendant
Christopher Magnus
Defendant
Jonathan Wycinsky
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JONATHAN WYCINSKY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF RICHMOND, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-02873-MMC 

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

In the above-titled action, plaintiff alleges claims against two named defendants, 

specifically, the City of Richmond (“the City”) and Christopher Magnus (“Magnus”). For 

the reasons stated below, plaintiff’s claims against both defendants will be dismissed 

pursuant to, respectively, Rules 12(b)(6) and 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure.1

First, with respect to the City, by order filed August 2, 2016, plaintiff’s claims 

against said defendant were dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can 

be granted; by the same order, plaintiff was afforded the opportunity to file, no later than 

August 12, 2016, a First Amended Complaint, and was informed that if he did not do so, 

the case would proceed only as against Magnus. Plaintiff has not filed an amended 

 

1 Additionally, the Court notes that plaintiff has repeatedly failed to comply with 

court orders and otherwise prosecute his case. Plaintiff failed to comply with three orders 

directing him to indicate whether he would consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate 

judge, failed to respond to the City’s motion to dismiss, failed to respond to the magistrate 

judge’s report and recommendation to dismiss the case, failed to adhere to ADR 

compliance deadlines, failed to appear at a regularly scheduled case management 

conference, and failed to file a mandatory case management statement in advance of 

such conference.

Case 3:16-cv-02873-MMC Document 20 Filed 09/30/16 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

complaint.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Court’s order filed August 2, 2016, to 

the extent the above-titled action is brought against the City, the action is hereby 

DISMISSED with prejudice, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). 

Second, with respect to Magnus, by order filed September 14, 2016, plaintiff was 

directed to show cause, in writing and no later than September 28, 2016, why his claims 

against said defendant should not be dismissed for failure to serve within the time 

required by Rule 4(m). Plaintiff has not filed a response to the Court’s order.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims against Magnus are hereby DISMISSED without 

prejudice, pursuant to Rule 4(m). 

In light of the above, the Clerk of Court is directed to close the file and enter 

judgment in favor of defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 30, 2016

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-02873-MMC Document 20 Filed 09/30/16 Page 2 of 2