Young v. County of Alameda
- Pitt
- 5:24-cv-03914
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Young v. County of Alameda, Judge Pitt dismissed the action without prejudice after Young failed to file an amended complaint.
Walter Lee Young; the action against County of Alameda, et al., was dismissed without prejudice.
What happened
In Young v. County of Alameda, the court had previously dismissed Walter Lee Young’s original complaint because it did not state a legally recognizable claim. The court allowed him to amend part of the complaint, but the amended complaint was due June 6, 2025, and was not filed.
The court had warned Young about the consequences of failing to amend. Because he did not file an amended complaint despite that opportunity and warning, the court dismissed the action without prejudice.
Judge P. Casey Pitt ordered the dismissal on July 22, 2025. The order states that Young may ask to reopen the action by filing an amended complaint that follows the court’s earlier instructions and a motion labeled “MOTION TO REOPEN.”
The detailed version
- Young v. County of Alameda · No. 5:24-cv-03914
- Pitt
- July 22, 2025
Background
The court previously dismissed Walter Lee Young’s original complaint because it failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. The court granted partial leave to amend, meaning Young was allowed to revise part of his complaint. The amended complaint was due June 6, 2025, but the court states that Young did not file it.
Ruling
Because Young failed to amend after receiving an opportunity to do so and a warning about the consequences, the court dismissed the action without prejudice. The order cites a Ninth Circuit decision recognizing dismissal when a plaintiff fails to amend.
Effect of the Order
The court stated that Young may move to reopen the action if he believes he can state a cognizable claim. To do so, he must file an amended complaint consistent with the court’s previous order and a motion with “MOTION TO REOPEN” on its first page. The order cites Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.