Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01675/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01675-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Tulare
Defendant
County of Tulare
Defendant
Maria Guadalupe Rodelo
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIA GUADALUPE RODELO,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF TULARE, a municipality; and 

DOES 1-10,

Defendants.

No. 1:15-cv-01675-DAD-BAM

ORDER WARNING PLAINTIFF TO FILE 

AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 

TWENTY-ONE DAYS OR DEFENDANT 

CITY OF TULARE WILL BE DISMISSED 

WITH PREJUDICE

(Doc. No. 34)

On November 4, 2015, plaintiff Maria Guadalupe Rodelo filed her complaint naming as 

defendants the City of Tulare, County of Tulare, and Does 1-10. (Doc. No. 1.)1 Only municipal 

liability claims were alleged against the City of Tulare. (Id.) On February 11, 2016, the 

previously District Judge previously assigned to this action dismissed the municipal liability 

claims against the City of Tulare pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)1). (Doc. 

No. 29.) In that same order, plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended within twenty-one

days of the date of that order “if plaintiff can do so consonant with Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 11.” (Id.) On February 18, 2016, this action was reassigned to U.S. District Judge 

Dale A. Drozd for all further proceedings. (Doc. No. 30.) On March 3, 2016, pursuant to the 

 

1

 Plaintiff is now proceeding pro se in this action. (Doc. No. 35.) 

Case 1:15-cv-01675-DAD-BAM Document 36 Filed 03/08/16 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

2

parties‟ stipulation, the court dismissed the County of Tulare from the action with prejudice. 

(Doc. No. 33.)

On March 4, 2016, counsel for the City of Tulare filed a proposed order dismissing all 

municipal liability claims against the City of Tulare with prejudice and entering judgment in 

favor of the City of Tulare due to plaintiff‟s failure to file an amended complaint in accordance 

with the court‟s February 11, 2016 order and the deadline for filing an amended complaint set 

forth therein. (Doc. No. 34.) Defendant City of Tulare did not, however, file a noticed motion to 

dismiss. Nevertheless, as of the date of this order and well past the deadline for the filing of an 

amended complaint established by the court‟s February 11, 2016 order, plaintiff has still not filed

an amended complaint.

District courts may impose sanctions, including dismissal with prejudice, upon a plaintiff

for non-prosecution. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986) (standards 

for dismissal under Federal Rule Civil Procedure 41(b).) However, “„[t]he district court abuses 

its discretion if it imposes a sanction of dismissal without first considering the impact of the 

sanction and the adequacy of less drastic sanctions.‟” Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 

131–32 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting United States v. Nat’l Med. Enters., Inc., 792 F.2d 906, 912 (9th 

Cir. 1986)). Factors that indicate whether a district court has considered alternatives include:

(1) Did the court explicitly discuss the feasibility of less drastic 

sanctions and explain why alternative sanctions would be 

inadequate? (2) Did the court implement alternative methods of 

sanctioning or curing the malfeasance before ordering dismissal? 

(3) Did the court warn the plaintiff of the possibility of dismissal 

before actually ordering dismissal?

Id. at 132. While encouraged, explicit discussion of alternatives is not necessary in such an order 

of dismissal. Id. Warning that failure to obey a court order will result in dismissal can itself meet 

the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Estrada v. Speno & Cohen, 244 F.3d 1050, 1057 

(9th Cir. 2001); Malone, 833 F.2d at 132–33; Adriana Int’l Corp. v. Thoeren, 913 F.2d 1406, 

1413 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424 (district court adequately considered 

alternatives to dismissal under Rule 41(b) when it set deadlines for prosecution of the case and 

warned that failure to meet deadlines would result in dismissal).

Case 1:15-cv-01675-DAD-BAM Document 36 Filed 03/08/16 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

Although a warning is not always required, Adriana, 913 F.2d at 1413; Malone, 833 F.2d 

at 132; Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Nat. Beverage Distributors, 69 F.3d 337, 353 (9th Cir. 1995), the 

Ninth Circuit has typically focused on the lack of warning and absence of consideration of less 

drastic alternatives when in such circumstances the dismissal is sua sponte rather than in response 

to a noticed motion. See Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 274 (9th Cir. 1992). Compare In re 

Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1455 (9th Cir. 1994), and Morris v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 942 F.2d 648, 

652 (9th Cir. 1991) (rejecting a warning requirement in a case involving a noticed motion to 

dismiss), with Oliva, 958 F.2d at 274 (reversing a dismissal because the court sua sponte

dismissed a case without considering alternative sanctions or giving a warning), and Hamilton v. 

Neptune Orient Lines, Ltd., 811 F.2d 498, 500 (9th Cir. 1987) (reversing a district court‟s sua 

sponte dismissal of a case because it failed to warn prior to dismissal).

Here, as indicated above, no noticed motion to dismiss has been filed following the 

court‟s order dismissing with leave to amend. Moreover, plaintiff is now proceeding in pro se 

and has not previously been explicitly warned by the court of the consequences of not filing an 

amended complaint. Accordingly, and out of an abundance of caution, the court will provide 

plaintiff with one final opportunity to file an amended complaint “if plaintiff can do so consonant 

with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.”

2

 However, the court also explicitly warns that if 

plaintiff fails to do so within the time provided by this order, her claims against defendant City of 

Tulare will be dismissed with prejudice and judgment will be entered in favor of defendant City 

of Tulare.

/////

/////

 

2

 Plaintiff is advised that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make an amended 

complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that any amended complaint be complete in itself 

without reference to prior pleadings. The amended complaint will supersede the original 

complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir.1967). Thus, in an amended complaint, 

just as if it were the initial complaint filed in the case, each defendant must be listed in the caption 

and identified in the body of the complaint, and each claim and the involvement of each 

defendant must be sufficiently alleged. Any amended complaint which plaintiff may elect to file 

in this action must also include concise but complete factual allegations describing the conduct 

and events which underlie plaintiff's claims.

Case 1:15-cv-01675-DAD-BAM Document 36 Filed 03/08/16 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

For the reasons set forth above:

1) Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint with twenty-one days of the 

date of this order “if plaintiff can do so consonant with Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 11”; and

2) Plaintiff is advised that if she does not comply with this deadline the dismissal of the 

municipal liability claims against defendant City of Tulare will be with prejudice and 

judgment will be entered in favor of defendant City of Tulare.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 8, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01675-DAD-BAM Document 36 Filed 03/08/16 Page 4 of 4