Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01377/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01377-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City Of Fairfield
Defendant
Bill Gresham
Defendant
Tate Guice III
Plaintiff
Matt Thomas
Defendant

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

Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 1

the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.

(continued...)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TATE GUICE III,

2:06-cv-1377-MCE-EFB

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CITY OF FAIRFIELD, a public

entity; FAIRFIELD POLICE

OFFICER THOMAS NO. 855,

individually and in his

official capacity; FAIRFIELD

CHIEF OF POLICE BILL GRESHAM,

individually and in his

official capacity; and DOES 1

through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Through the present action, Plaintiff Tate Guice III

(“Guice”) claims that Defendants City of Fairfield, Officer Matt

Thomas, and Chief of Police Bill Gresham (collectively

“Defendants”) violated his civil rights during the course of his

arrest on suspicion of driving under the influence.1

Case 2:06-cv-01377-MCE -EFB Document 18 Filed 02/12/07 Page 1 of 4
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

(...continued) 1

Local Rule 78-230(h). 

2

Defendants are presently moving under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(b) to dismiss with prejudice all claims arising

under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as

well as all state claims against the City of Fairfield. For the

reasons set forth below, Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed the present action March 22, 2006, in the

Superior Court of Solano County. That action was removed to this

Court on June 21, 2006. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on June 22,

2006. Plaintiff neither opposed that Motion nor filed a

Statement of Non-Opposition. Defendants filed their reply brief

on July 31, 2006. On November 16, 2006, the Court issued an

Order granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in its entirety but

granted Plaintiff twenty (20) days leave to amend his Complaint

to remedy the identified defects. Plaintiff did not amend his

Complaint nor did he file a statement with the Court that he was

electing to stand on the Complaint as filed. On December 12,

2006, Defendants filed the present Motion to Dismiss pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) seeking dismissal with

prejudice and without leave to amend as a sanction for failing to

adhere to this Court’s Order. Plaintiff again failed to oppose

Defendants’ Motion or to file a Statement of Non-Opposition.

Case 2:06-cv-01377-MCE -EFB Document 18 Filed 02/12/07 Page 2 of 4
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

ANALYSIS

Under Ninth Circuit precedent, when a plaintiff fails to

amend his complaint after a district court dismisses the

complaint with leave to amend, the dismissal is typically

considered a dismissal for failing to comply with a court order

rather than for failure to prosecute a claim. See Yourish v. Ca.

Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 1999). In the present

action, Plaintiff has repeatedly failed to respond either to

Motions brought by Defendants or Orders issued by this Court. In

such a situation, resources continue to be consumed by this case

sitting idly on the Court’s docket. The failure of the Plaintiff

eventually to respond to the Court’s ultimatum--either by

amending his Complaint or by indicating to the Court that he will

not do so--is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b)

dismissal. See Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1065

(9th Cir. 2004).

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

/// 

Case 2:06-cv-01377-MCE -EFB Document 18 Filed 02/12/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss pursuant to Rule 41(b) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s First

Amendment claim against all Defendants as well as his state law

claims against the City of Fairfield.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2007

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01377-MCE -EFB Document 18 Filed 02/12/07 Page 4 of 4