Malloy v. City of San Francisco

Background

Stephen Grove Malloy, proceeding without a lawyer, brought an employment-discrimination action. The court had previously dismissed a related action as duplicative and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint in this action. Malloy was given permission to file an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies.

The court initially extended the amendment deadline through March 17, 2022, based on a letter from Malloy’s medical provider. Malloy did not meet that deadline. He later requested additional extensions, including extensions described as medical leave or a medical stay. The court granted one further extension but warned that the deadline would not be extended indefinitely and that failure to file an amended complaint would result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

On September 12, 2022, the court denied another extension request but gave Malloy one final opportunity to file an amended complaint by September 23, 2022. The order warned that failure to meet that deadline would result in dismissal with prejudice and that a further extension or other ancillary motion would not suspend the deadline.

Court’s analysis

Malloy did not file an amended complaint by the deadline. Instead, he filed a document titled “Response to Order to Show Cause.” He alleged that the defendants had made a material misrepresentation in an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission position statement and requested an immediate medical stay, orders directed to defendants’ counsel, and a hearing with oral argument.

The court denied that requested relief. It found that Malloy provided no evidence supporting another medical or other stay. It also found that the alleged misrepresentation, even if one had occurred, was unrelated to filing an amended complaint or deciding whether another extension was needed. The court noted that no adverse finding about Malloy’s disability had been made.

Under Rule 41(b), a court may dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute it or fails to comply with a court order. The court considered the factors governing such a dismissal: the public interest in resolving cases promptly, the court’s need to manage its docket, possible prejudice to the defendants, the availability of less severe alternatives, and the policy favoring decisions on the merits.

The court found that four factors supported dismissal. Malloy’s failure to file an operative complaint had left the case at a standstill and interfered with docket management. The court found no legitimate reason for his failure after repeated warnings. It had already tried less severe measures by granting extensions, explaining the pleading deficiencies, and giving Malloy a final opportunity to amend. Although resolving cases on their merits generally weighed against dismissal, the court concluded that a merits decision was impossible without an operative complaint.

Disposition

The court denied Malloy’s request for a medical stay and other ancillary relief. It dismissed the action with prejudice under Rule 41(b), directed the clerk to close the file, and ordered the termination of all pending matters.