Kelly v. San Mateo County Board of Supervisors
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:22-cv-02519
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
Kelly v. San Mateo County Board of Supervisors: Judge Rogers dismissed the action with prejudice after Kelly failed to amend his complaint or contact the court.
Khalil Alexander Kelly’s action was dismissed with prejudice, ending the case against the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors and the other defendants identified in the caption.
What happened
In Kelly v. San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, the court had dismissed Kelly’s complaint and allowed him 28 days to file an amended complaint. The court warned that failing to do so would result in dismissal with prejudice.
The deadline passed, but Kelly neither filed an amended complaint nor contacted the court. The court therefore dismissed the action with prejudice and directed the clerk to close the file and terminate all pending motions.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued the order on October 28, 2022, relying on the rule allowing dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or follow a court order.
The detailed version
- Kelly v. San Mateo County Board of Supervisors · No. 4:22-cv-02519
- Yvonne Rogers
- Oct. 28, 2022
Background
On September 23, 2022, the court dismissed Khalil Alexander Kelly’s complaint but allowed him 28 days to file an amended complaint. The court warned that failing to file a timely amendment would result in dismissal of the action with prejudice, meaning the case could not be refiled on the same claims.
Court’s Ruling
Twenty-eight days passed without Kelly filing an amended complaint or communicating with the court. Applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the court dismissed the action with prejudice. The court also directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the file.
Effect of the Order
The order ended Kelly’s action against the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors and the other defendants identified in the caption. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers did not decide the underlying claims; the dismissal was based on Kelly’s failure to comply with the deadline to amend his complaint.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.