Castaneda v. The City and County of San Francisco, California
Benjamin Job Castaneda v. The City and County of San Francisco, California, et al.
- Laurel Beeler
- 3:25-cv-05048
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Castaneda v. City and County of San Francisco, Judge Breyer dismissed the case without prejudice after Castaneda failed to pay the filing fee or prosecute it.
Benjamin Job Castaneda’s action against the City and County of San Francisco, California, the State of California, Building Owners Management Association, and individual defendants was dismissed without prejudice; the court did not resolve the underlying claims.
What happened
Benjamin Job Castaneda sued the City and County of San Francisco, California, the State of California, the Building Owners Management Association, and individual defendants.
After suspecting that Castaneda was impersonating an attorney, Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler ordered him to explain why the case should not be closed for failing to pay the filing fee or pursue the case. Castaneda did not respond, and he also did not object to Judge Beeler’s recommendation to dismiss the action.
Judge Charles R. Breyer adopted the recommendation and dismissed the action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) because Castaneda failed to pay the filing fee and prosecute the case.
The detailed version
- Castaneda v. The City and County of San Francisco, California · No. 3:25-cv-05048
- Laurel Beeler
- Oct. 3, 2025
Background
Benjamin Job Castaneda brought the action on June 13, 2025, against the City and County of San Francisco, California, the State of California, Building Owners Management Association, and individual defendants.
The court suspected that Castaneda was impersonating an attorney, Mr. Bryan Castaneda. On September 4, 2025, Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler issued an order requiring Castaneda to explain why the case should not be closed for failure to pay the filing fee or prosecute the case. Castaneda did not respond.
Report and Recommendation
Judge Beeler then issued a Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal. The period for Castaneda to object expired, and he did not object. The opinion cites 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), which gives a party 14 days to object to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
Ruling
Judge Charles R. Breyer found the recommendation sound because Castaneda failed to pay the filing fee and prosecute the case. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute. The court adopted Judge Beeler’s Report and Recommendation and dismissed the action without prejudice. The order did not decide the underlying claims against the defendants.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.