Young v. Battles
- William Orrick
- 3:21-cv-09375
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Young v. Battles, Judge Orrick ordered Young to respond by October 10 or risk dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Kenry L. Young, whose case was subject to a response deadline and a warning that it could be dismissed if he failed to respond properly.
What happened
In Kenry L. Young v. Battles, Young filed several versions of a complaint and received permission to amend them. The court had ordered him to file another amended complaint by August 1, 2022, but he had not done so.
The court gave Young until October 10, 2022, to either ask that his second amended complaint be reinstated or file another amended complaint. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
Judge William Orrick warned that failing to file a proper response could lead to dismissal of the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
The detailed version
- Young v. Battles · No. 3:21-cv-09375
- William Orrick
- Aug. 31, 2022
Background
Young first filed an unsigned complaint and then filed an amended, signed complaint. The court granted his later requests for permission to amend. After Young filed a second amended complaint, he requested permission to amend again; the court granted that request and dismissed the second amended complaint. The court ordered Young to file an amended complaint by August 1, 2022, but the deadline passed without a new amended complaint.
Order
The court ordered Young to file a written response by October 10, 2022. He had to choose between asking the court to reinstate the second amended complaint as the operative complaint or filing an amended complaint.
If Young filed an amended complaint, the court required it to use the court’s form, identify itself on the first page as a “THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT,” include every claim and defendant he wished to pursue, and avoid incorporating material from an earlier complaint by reference.
Potential consequence
The court warned that failing to file a proper response could result in dismissal of the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. This order directed a response; it did not itself dismiss the action or decide the merits of Young’s claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.