Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01909/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01909-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Oakland Police Department and Agency
Defendant
Prince Franklin Tsetse
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PRINCE FRANKLIN TSETSE,

Plaintiff,

v.

OAKLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT,

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01909-DMR (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

Plaintiff Prince Franklin Tsetse, who is currently in custody at the Santa Rita Jail, filed a 

pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. 1. Plaintiff has consented to 

magistrate judge jurisdiction in this matter. Dkt. 1 at 4. 

On October 5, 2015, the court issued an Order Dismissing Complaint With Leave To 

Amend. Specifically, the court granted Plaintiff twenty-eight days from the date of that Order to 

file an amended complaint correcting the deficiencies of his claims. Plaintiff was warned that the 

failure to timely file an amended complaint would result in the dismissal of this action for failure 

to prosecute. The time for Plaintiff to file his amended complaint has passed, and no amended 

complaint has been filed. Taking into account the salient factors set forth in Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 

963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992), the court finds that dismissal is warranted under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).1See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 989, 992 (9th Cir. 

1999) (affirming dismissal of action following plaintiff’s failure to amend complaint after 

 

1

If and when Plaintiff is prepared to pursue his claims, he may file a new civil rights 

action. The limitations period to file a section 1983 action in California is two years, but it is 

tolled for up to two years during a continuous period of incarceration. See Silva v. Crain, 169 F. 

3d 608, 610 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding, pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340(3), that the 

limitations period for filing a section 1983 action in California is one year); S.B. 688 (amending 

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340(3) and adding section 335.1 to establish two-year residual limitations 

period for personal injury actions); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 352.1(a) (providing for an additional 

two years of tolling during a period of continual imprisonment).

Case 4:15-cv-01909-DMR Document 5 Filed 11/12/15 Page 1 of 3
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

receiving leave to do so, where the interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, the court’s 

management of its docket, and avoiding prejudice to defendants favored dismissal). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint in the above-captioned action 

is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment, terminate 

all pending motions and close the file.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 12, 2015 ______________________________________

DONNA M. RYU

United States Magistrate Judge

 

2 As mentioned above, Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. The 

undersigned Magistrate Judge, then, has jurisdiction to dismiss this action, even though 

Defendants have not served or consented to magistrate jurisdiction. See Neals v. Norwood, 59 

F.3d 530, 532 (5th Cir. 1995) (holding that magistrate judge had jurisdiction to dismiss prison 

inmate’s action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as frivolous without consent of defendants because 

defendants had not been served yet and therefore were not parties).

Case 4:15-cv-01909-DMR Document 5 Filed 11/12/15 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PRINCE FRANKLIN TSETSE,

Plaintiff,

v.

OAKLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT AND 

AGENCY,

Defendant.

Case No. 4:15-cv-01909-DMR 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on November 12, 2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by 

placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Prince Franklin Tsetse ID: PFN BKB 201

Santa Rita Jail

5325 Broder Blvd

Dublin, CA 94568 

Dated: November 12, 2015

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Ivy Lerma Garcia, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable DONNA M. RYU

Case 4:15-cv-01909-DMR Document 5 Filed 11/12/15 Page 3 of 3