Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 25, 2022

Hill v. Cornelson

Judge
Yvonne Rogers
Docket
4:21-cv-06616
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureCivil Rights
In one sentence

In Hill v. Cornelson, Judge Rogers dismissed the complaint without prejudice after Hill failed to file a required amended complaint.

Who this affects

Plaintiff Cymeyon V. Hill's action was dismissed without prejudice; the defendants were affected by the closure of the case.

What happened

In Hill v. Cornelson, the court had given Hill 28 days to file a second amended complaint stating a valid constitutional claim.

That deadline passed, and Hill did not file the required complaint. The court therefore dismissed the action for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered the complaint dismissed without prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate pending motions, and closed the file. The order said Hill could file a new civil-rights action when prepared to pursue the claims.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Hill v. Cornelson · No. 4:21-cv-06616
Judge
Yvonne Rogers
Date
Apr. 25, 2022

Background

On February 3, 2022, the court issued a second dismissal with permission to amend. It gave Hill 28 days to file a second amended complaint alleging facts sufficient to state a constitutional claim. The court warned that failing to file on time would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.

The deadline passed, and no second amended complaint was filed.

Ruling

The court concluded that dismissal was warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute an action or comply with court rules or orders. The court ordered that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice. It also directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the file.

The order's footnote stated that, when prepared to pursue the claims, Hill could file a new civil-rights action. It also discussed the limitations period and tolling rules that may apply to a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.