Easley v. Trump
- Edward Davila
- 5:22-cv-02344
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Easley v. Trump, Judge Davila dismissed the action with prejudice after Easley repeatedly failed to file the required amended complaint.
The dismissal ended Gary D Easley's action against Donald J. Trump and the other defendants.
What happened
In Easley v. Trump, Gary D Easley filed an action against Donald J. Trump and other defendants. The court found that his complaint did not meet the required screening standards and allowed him to amend it.
The court granted Easley three extensions of time to file an amended complaint. Although he submitted an incomplete version and later said he had contracted COVID-19, he did not meet the final January 27, 2023 deadline. The court had warned that missing that deadline would result in dismissal and that it would not consider further extension requests.
Judge Edward J. Davila dismissed the action with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute and directed the clerk to close the file.
The detailed version
- Easley v. Trump · No. 5:22-cv-02344
- Edward Davila
- Feb. 9, 2023
Background
Gary D Easley filed the action on April 15, 2022, against Donald J. Trump and other defendants. Magistrate Judge DeMarchi screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and found that it did not satisfy the screening requirements. On May 2, 2022, the court gave Easley until May 23, 2022, to file an amended complaint.
Easley did not meet that deadline. Magistrate Judge DeMarchi then recommended dismissal, and Easley filed a motion seeking more time. The court granted that request and set a July 23, 2022 deadline. After Easley filed a second extension request, the court granted it and set an August 15, 2022 deadline. The court warned that failing to meet that deadline would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute under Rule 41.
Easley missed the August deadline and filed a third extension request on August 18, 2022. He said that he could not meet the deadline because he had contracted COVID-19, requested an extension to September 1, 2022, and said he was almost finished with his amended complaint. He also submitted an incomplete version. On January 13, 2023, the court found good cause and gave him until January 27, 2023, to file the amended complaint. The court expressly warned that failure to meet this deadline would result in dismissal and stated that it would not consider additional extension requests.
Ruling
Easley did not file an amended complaint by January 27, 2023. The court relied on its authority to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward. Judge Edward J. Davila dismissed the action with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The clerk was directed to close the file.
The opinion does not address the underlying claims because the action was dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.