Ham v. Allison
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:21-cv-00909
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Ham v. Allison, Judge Rogers dismissed the complaint without prejudice after Ham failed to file an amended complaint by the deadline.
Bill Ham’s complaint was dismissed, and the case was closed; the order also affected the defendants by ending this action.
What happened
In Ham v. Allison, the court had previously given Bill Ham 28 days to file an amended complaint stating a valid constitutional claim. The court warned that missing the deadline could lead to dismissal for failing to pursue the case.
The deadline passed, and Ham did not file an amended complaint. The court decided that dismissal was warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which allows dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute a case.
Judge Rogers ordered the complaint dismissed and directed the clerk to close the file. The order is titled a dismissal without prejudice, and a footnote says Ham may file a new civil-rights action if he is prepared to pursue his claims.
The detailed version
- Ham v. Allison · No. 4:21-cv-00909
- Yvonne Rogers
- Sept. 20, 2021
Background
On July 23, 2021, the court dismissed the case with permission to amend. It gave Bill Ham 28 days to file an amended complaint alleging facts sufficient to state a valid constitutional claim. The court warned that failing to file the amended complaint on time could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward.
The deadline passed, and no amended complaint was filed.
Reasoning
The court considered the factors identified in Ferdik v. Bonzelet and found that dismissal was warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The court also cited Yourish v. California Amplifier, which affirmed dismissal after a plaintiff failed to amend a complaint despite receiving permission to do so.
Disposition
The court ordered that the complaint in the action be dismissed and directed the clerk to close the file. The order is captioned an “Order of Dismissal Without Prejudice.” A footnote states that, if Ham is prepared to pursue his claims, he may file a new civil-rights action. The footnote also states that California’s limitations period for a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is two years, with tolling of up to two years during continuous incarceration.
Judge Yvonne Rogers signed the order on September 20, 2021.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.