Young v. Valenzuela
- William Orrick
- 3:22-cv-02350
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Young v. Valenzuela, Judge Orrick ordered Young to respond by October 10, 2022, warning that nonresponse could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Kenry Lee Young, who was ordered to respond by October 10, 2022, or risk possible dismissal for failure to prosecute.
What happened
In Young v. Valenzuela, Kenry Lee Young filed a complaint and then received permission to file an amended complaint. The original complaint had been dismissed, and the deadline to file the amended complaint passed without a filing.
The court ordered Young to respond by October 10, 2022. He had to either ask to reinstate the original complaint or file an amended complaint. The court said no deadline extensions would be granted.
Judge William H. Orrick warned that failing to file a proper response could result in dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute. The order did not itself dismiss the action.
The detailed version
- Young v. Valenzuela · No. 3:22-cv-02350
- William Orrick
- Sept. 1, 2022
Background
Kenry Lee Young filed a complaint and then moved for permission to file an amended complaint. The court granted that motion, dismissed the original complaint, and ordered Young to file an amended complaint by August 1, 2022. The deadline passed, and no amended complaint had been filed.
Order
The court directed Young to file a written response by October 10, 2022. The response had to be either a statement asking the court to reinstate the original complaint as the operative complaint, or an amended complaint. The court stated that it would not grant extensions of time.
If Young filed an amended complaint, the court required it to use the court's form, include the caption and case number, and state “FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. The court explained that an amended complaint completely replaces the earlier complaint and must include all claims and defendants Young wished to pursue; it could not incorporate material from the 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. The order itself did not dismiss the action.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.