Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00976/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00976-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Oakland Police Department
Defendant
Kevin Lee Williams
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

KEVIN LEE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

OAKLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-00976-MEJ 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Kevin Lee Williams (“Plaintiff”) filed this case against the Oakland Police 

Department on March 2, 2015, as well as an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Although 

the Court granted his In Forma Pauperis Application, it dismissed the Complaint with leave to 

amend. Despite repeated extensions of the deadline to file an amended complaint and the issuance 

of an Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond. 

Based on this procedural history, the Court finds it appropriate to dismiss this case pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).1

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff’s Complaint contains no specific legal claims, but alleges as follows:

In this suit, I’m filing an complaint against Oakland Police 

Department for badly discrimination against my ethnicity, race, and 

the abuse of my tri-race, and the imbedding of an solo race and 

baggage, racism and pain. I’m asking for a sum of money cause of 

my hardship every time I came in touch with the officers, cases, etc. 

I know the sum of this suit is paltry, but I’m asking $25,000.00 for 

the rights abused and feel I’m worth it. I also would like the 

Oakland Police Department to be reprimanded on policy, care, and 

handling of mixed race individuals.

 

1 On March 17, 2015, Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Defendant has not been served, and therefore is not a party to the 

suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). See Levy v. United States, 2012 WL 1439047, at *1 (N.D. 

Cal. Apr. 25, 2012);Third World Media, LLC v. Does 1-1568, 2011 WL 4344160, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 

Sept. 15, 2011). Therefore, the undersigned may exercise jurisdiction to conduct all proceedings 

in this matter.

Case 3:15-cv-00976-MEJ Document 16 Filed 09/14/15 Page 1 of 5
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

Compl., Dkt. No. 1. While Plaintiff made vague references to discrimination based on race, he 

does not refer to any federal law and fails to identify any constitutional or statutory basis for his

claims. As the Court found it difficult to determine what the conduct is that constitutes the basis 

for the alleged violations of law, it dismissed the Complaint on March 23, 2015, but granted leave 

to amend by April 27, 2015. Dkt. No. 6. Plaintiff subsequently filed two requests for additional 

time, which the Court granted, with an initial extension to May 22, 2015 and a second extension to 

June 19, 2015. Dkt. Nos. 8, 10. On August 26, 2015, as Plaintiff had by then had over five 

months to file an amended complaint, yet failed to do so, the Court hereby ordered him to show 

cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with 

court deadlines. Dkt. No. 15. The Court ordered Plaintiff to respond by September 9, 2015, and 

warned “the Court shall dismiss this case without a hearing if no responsive declaration is filed.” 

Id. (emphasis in original). Plaintiff has failed to respond as of the date of this Order

LEGAL STANDARD

Under Rule 41(b), “the district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any 

order of the court.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Oliva v. 

Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 273-74 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court may dismiss sua sponte for failure to 

meet court deadline). “[T]he district court must weigh the following factors in determining 

whether a Rule 41(b) dismissal is warranted: ‘(1) the public’s interest in expeditious 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 sanctions.’” Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 

Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). The Henderson factors “are ‘not a 

series of conditions precedent before the judge can do anything,’ but a ‘way for a district judge to 

think about what to do.’” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig. (In re PPA), 460 

F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Valley Eng’rs Inc. v. Elec. Eng’g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 

1057 (9th Cir. 1998)). Dismissal is appropriate “where at least four factors support dismissal . . . 

or where at least three factors ‘strongly’ support dismissal.” Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 

F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998).

Case 3:15-cv-00976-MEJ Document 16 Filed 09/14/15 Page 2 of 5
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

DISCUSSION

The first two Henderson factors strongly support dismissal. First, “the public’s interest in 

expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.” Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 

983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). Second, the Court’s need to manage its docket also weighs in favor of 

dismissal. Plaintiff delayed adjudication of the claims in this case by failing to file an amended 

complaint and failing to respond to this Court’s show cause order. Non-compliance with 

procedural rules and the Court’s orders wastes “valuable time that [the Court] could have devoted 

to other . . . criminal and civil cases on its docket.” Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261.

As for the third Henderson factor, the mere pendency of a lawsuit cannot constitute 

sufficient prejudice to require dismissal. Yourish, 191 F.3d at 991. However, “prejudice . . . may . 

. . consist of costs or burdens of litigation.” In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1228. Moreover, “a 

presumption of prejudice arises from a plaintiff’s unexplained failure to prosecute.” Laurino v. 

Syringa Gen. Hosp., 279 F.3d 750, 753 (9th Cir. 2002). A plaintiff has the burden of 

demonstrating a non-frivolous reason for failing to meet a court deadline. Id.; see also Yourish, 

191 F.3d at 991. Here, Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, offered no

explanation for the failure to file an amended complaint, and did not request an extension of the 

filing deadline since April 2015. Therefore, the Court concludes the third Henderson factor also 

supports dismissal.

The fourth Henderson factor, that public policy favors disposition of cases on their merits,

normally weighs strongly against dismissal. See, e.g., Hernandez, 138 F.3d at 399. “At the same 

time, a case that is stalled or unreasonably delayed by a party’s failure to comply with deadlines . . 

. cannot move forward toward resolution on the merits.” In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1228. The Ninth 

Circuit has “recognized that this factor ‘lends little support’ to a party whose responsibility it is to 

move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in that 

direction.” Id. (quoting In re Exxon Valdez, 102 F.3d 429, 433 (9th Cir. 1996)). Thus, if the 

fourth Henderson factor weighs against dismissal here, it does so very weakly. 

Finally, the Court has already attempted less drastic sanctions, without success, and 

therefore determines that trying them again would be inadequate or inappropriate. “Though there 

Case 3:15-cv-00976-MEJ Document 16 Filed 09/14/15 Page 3 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

are a wide variety of sanctions short of dismissal available, the district court need not exhaust 

them all before finally dismissing a case.” Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 

(9th Cir. 1981). Here, the Court already attempted the lesser sanction of issuing an Order to Show 

Cause and giving Plaintiff an opportunity to explain the failure to respond to file an amended 

complaint. As Plaintiff failed to respond, another order requiring Plaintiff to respond is likely to 

be futile. See, e.g., Gleason v. World Sav. Bank, FSB, 2013 WL 3927799, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 

26, 2013) (finding dismissal under Rule 41(b) appropriate where the court previously attempted 

the lesser sanction of issuing an Order to Show Cause and giving the plaintiff an additional 

opportunity to re-plead). Further, the Order to Show Cause warned Plaintiff of the risk of 

dismissal; thus Plaintiff cannot maintain that the Court has failed in its “obligation to warn the 

plaintiff that dismissal is imminent.” Oliva, 958 F.2d at 274. Accordingly, the Court finds that 

the fifth factor also weighs in favor of dismissal. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the analysis above, the Court finds that at least four of the five Henderson factors 

weigh in favor of dismissal. Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint and failed to respond to 

an order to show cause. Thus, Plaintiff failed to prosecute this case and dismissal is appropriate. 

However, a less drastic alternative is to dismiss without prejudice. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. 

Dismissal will minimize prejudice to Defendant, but dismissing the case without prejudice will 

preserve the ability of Plaintiff to seek relief. Thus, “[i]n an abundance—perhaps 

overabundance—of caution,” the Court finds that dismissal without prejudice is appropriate. 

Faulkner v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc., 706 F.3d 1017, 1021 (9th Cir. 2013) (remanding to the district 

court in order to consider whether dismissal should have been without prejudice). 

Accordingly, this case is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to 

prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 14, 2015

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00976-MEJ Document 16 Filed 09/14/15 Page 4 of 5
5

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

KEVIN LEE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

OAKLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-00976-MEJ 

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 September 14, 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.

Kevin Lee Williams

1001 Polk Street

San Francisco, CA 94109 

Dated: September 14, 2015

Richard W. Wieking

Clerk, United States District Court

By: ___________________________ 

Chris Nathan, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable MARIA-ELENA JAMES

Case 3:15-cv-00976-MEJ Document 16 Filed 09/14/15 Page 5 of 5