King v. San Francisco Police Department
- Kandis Westmore
- 4:20-cv-06887
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In King v. City and County of San Francisco, Judge Westmore dismissed the case with prejudice because King failed to prosecute.
Troy King and the defendants, including the City and County of San Francisco.
What happened
In King v. City and County of San Francisco, the court dismissed Troy King’s case with prejudice after he failed to meet a deadline and respond to a court order.
The court had given King several extensions to file an amended complaint and warned that missing the final deadline could lead to dismissal. King filed the amended complaint one day late and did not respond to the order requiring him to explain why the case should not be dismissed.
Magistrate Judge Kandis Westmore dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute and directed the clerk to close it.
The detailed version
- King v. San Francisco Police Department · No. 4:20-cv-06887
- Kandis Westmore
- July 5, 2022
Background
Troy King filed the case against the City and County of San Francisco on October 1, 2020, and the court granted his request to proceed without paying the filing fee. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which the court granted on March 9, 2022. The court ordered King to file an amended complaint by April 25, 2022.
The court later extended the deadline to May 31, 2022, after King requested more time to obtain responses to public-records requests. The court told King that the requested documents were not necessary to amend his complaint and that no further extensions would be provided. It warned that failing to file on time could result in dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute.
King then requested another extension. On June 3, 2022, the court denied that request, ordered him to explain by June 17 why the case should not be dismissed, and separately ordered him to file his amended complaint by that date. The court warned that failing to do both would result in dismissal with prejudice.
Ruling
King filed his first amended complaint on June 18, one day after the deadline. He did not respond to the order requiring him to explain why the case should not be dismissed.
The court relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which allows a court to dismiss a case when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with a court order. The court concluded that King’s late filing and failure to respond required dismissal. Magistrate Judge Kandis Westmore dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute and ordered the clerk to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.