Cymeyon V. Hill v. C. Martinez
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:21-cv-05557
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Cymeyon V. Hill v. C. Martinez, Judge Rogers dismissed the complaint without prejudice after Hill failed to file an amended complaint.
Cymeyon V. Hill’s case was dismissed without prejudice; C. Martinez and the other defendants were affected by the closure of this action, and Hill may file a new civil-rights action.
What happened
Cymeyon V. Hill brought a civil-rights case against C. Martinez and others, alleging constitutional violations. The court had previously found that the complaint did not state a legally recognized constitutional claim but allowed Hill to amend it.
The court gave Hill 28 days to file an amended complaint and warned that failing to do so could lead to dismissal for failing to pursue the case. That deadline passed, and Hill did not file an amended complaint.
Judge Yvonne Rogers dismissed the complaint without prejudice, ordered the pending motions—including Hill’s reconsideration motion—terminated as moot, and closed the case. The order said Hill may file a new civil-rights action if he is prepared to pursue his claims.
The detailed version
- Cymeyon V. Hill v. C. Martinez · No. 4:21-cv-05557
- Yvonne Rogers
- Feb. 10, 2022
Background
On January 5, 2022, the court dismissed Hill’s complaint but gave him permission to file an amended complaint. The court allowed 28 days to allege facts sufficient to state a legally recognized constitutional claim and warned that failing to file on time could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward.
The deadline passed without an amended complaint. The opinion also discusses a document Hill called a “Motion to Adhere for Reconsideration.” Hill stated that he had been retaliated against because his filing fees were “vacated.” The court said those allegations did not state a legally recognized retaliation claim because they did not identify protected conduct and defendants’ knowledge of that conduct. The court also explained that permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees does not forgive the fees.
Ruling
Judge Yvonne Rogers found that dismissal was warranted under the federal civil-procedure rules and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The Clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions as moot, including the reconsideration motion, terminate Docket No. 11, and close the file.
The order states that, if Hill is prepared to pursue his claims, he may file a new civil-rights action. It also discusses the limitations period and possible tolling for a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but the court did not decide the underlying constitutional claims in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.