Smith v. Alameda County Sheriff Dept
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:22-cv-07200
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In D’Andre Smith v. Officer Susaki, Judge Martinez-Olguin dismissed Smith’s complaint without prejudice after he failed to amend it by the deadline.
D’Andre Smith’s action was dismissed without prejudice after he failed to file the required amended complaint. The defendants were affected by the closure of the case, and the court terminated all pending motions.
What happened
In D’Andre Smith v. Officer Susaki, the court had previously given Smith 28 days to file an amended complaint correcting identified problems. The court warned that missing the deadline could lead to dismissal for failing to pursue the case.
The deadline passed, and Smith did not file the required amended complaint. The court dismissed the action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to move the case forward.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin also certified that any appeal without the required filing payment would not be taken in good faith, terminated all pending motions, and ordered the file closed.
The detailed version
- Smith v. Alameda County Sheriff Dept · No. 3:22-cv-07200
- Martinez-Olguin
- Oct. 28, 2024
Background
On July 15, 2024, the court issued a second dismissal order that gave D’Andre Smith leave to amend his complaint. The order gave Smith 28 days to file an amended complaint correcting deficiencies in his earlier pleading and warned that failing to meet the deadline could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward.
Ruling
The deadline passed without Smith filing an amended complaint. Applying the factors identified in Ferdik v. Bonzelet, the court found dismissal warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The court ordered that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice. The opinion states that Smith may file a new civil-rights action if he is prepared to pursue his claims. It also states that the limitations period for a Section 1983 action in California is two years and may be tolled for up to two years during a continuous period of incarceration.
Other Orders
The court certified that any appeal proceeding without prepayment of filing fees would not be taken in good faith. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the file. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin signed the order on October 28, 2024.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.