Hill v. Perez
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:21-cv-00446
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Cymeyon Hill v. C. Martinez, Judge Yvonne Rogers dismissed the complaint without prejudice after Hill failed to file an amended complaint.
Cymeyon Hill’s action against C. Martinez and the other named defendants was closed; the dismissal was without prejudice, and the court stated that Hill could file a new civil-rights action.
What happened
In Cymeyon Hill v. C. Martinez, the court had previously given Hill 28 days to file an amended complaint stating facts supporting a constitutional claim. The court warned that failing to do so could lead to dismissal for not pursuing the case.
Hill did not file an amended complaint. Instead, he returned the earlier order with statements rejecting the proceedings and challenging the court’s authority; the court ruled that filing was not a valid amended complaint.
The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute, terminated pending motions, and closed the case. Judge Yvonne Rogers also noted that Hill may file a new civil-rights action.
The detailed version
- Hill v. Perez · No. 4:21-cv-00446
- Yvonne Rogers
- Sept. 20, 2021
Background
On July 29, 2021, the court dismissed the action with leave to amend and denied Hill’s pending discovery motion as premature. The court gave Hill 28 days to file an amended complaint alleging facts sufficient to state a constitutional claim and warned that failure to do so would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Hill did not file an amended complaint before the deadline. He returned a copy of the court’s earlier order containing statements that he did not accept or consent to the proceedings, challenged the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, and asserted that his retaliation claim remained. The court determined that this filing did not qualify as a valid amended complaint.
Ruling
Applying the factors identified in Ferdik v. Bonzelet, the court found that dismissal was warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which allows dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute an action or comply with court orders. The court ordered that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate pending motions, and closed the file.
The court stated that, if Hill was prepared to pursue his claims, he could file a new civil-rights action. It also noted the limitations period and tolling rule it said applied to a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The opinion did not decide whether Hill’s constitutional or retaliation claims had merit.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.