Jack v. Sundberg
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:25-cv-00485
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Jack v. Sundberg, Judge Corley dismissed the action without prejudice because Jack neither renewed his fee-waiver request nor paid the filing fee.
Justin James Jack’s action against Christina Sundberg, Yuhuang Li, and Evergreen Cemetery was dismissed without prejudice; the order did not decide the merits of the claims.
What happened
In Jack v. Sundberg, Justin James Jack sued Christina Sundberg, Yuhuang Li, and Evergreen Cemetery. He asked to proceed without paying the filing fee, but the court denied that request because it lacked sufficient detail and gave him a deadline to submit a corrected request.
Jack did not submit another request by the deadline and did not pay the filing fee. The court therefore considered whether to dismiss the case for failing to follow its orders and prosecute the action.
Judge Corley concluded that four of the five relevant factors supported dismissal, including the need to manage the court’s cases and Jack’s failure to comply after receiving a warning. The court dismissed the action without prejudice and directed the Clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Jack v. Sundberg · No. 3:25-cv-00485
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Mar. 12, 2025
Background
Justin James Jack filed a complaint against Christina Sundberg, Yuhuang Li, and Evergreen Cemetery. He also applied to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court denied that application without prejudice because it lacked sufficient detail and set a deadline for Jack to file a more complete application.
Jack did not file another application by the deadline. The court then denied his request to proceed without paying the filing fee and ordered that the case would be dismissed without prejudice if he did not pay the filing fee by March 5, 2025. Jack did not pay the fee.
Court’s analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows a court to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or comply with a court order. The court applied five factors: the public’s interest in resolving cases promptly, the court’s need to manage its docket, the potential prejudice to defendants, the public policy favoring decisions on the merits, and the availability of less severe sanctions.
The court found that four factors supported dismissal. Jack’s failure to submit another fee-waiver application or pay the filing fee delayed the case and used court resources. The delay caused by his failure to prosecute also weighed toward dismissal. The court had previously warned him that failing to comply would result in dismissal, which satisfied the requirement to consider less severe sanctions. The factor favoring decisions on the merits weighed against dismissal.
Disposition
The court DISMISSES the action without prejudice. The Clerk was directed to close the action. The order did not decide the merits of Jack’s claims against the defendants.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.