Standley v. Clifton
- Pitts
- 5:23-cv-00509
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Standley v. Clifton, Judge Pitts dismissed the action with prejudice after Standley failed to file an amended complaint.
Cameron Standley’s action against Justin Clifton and the other named defendants was dismissed with prejudice.
What happened
In Standley v. Clifton, the court had previously dismissed Cameron Standley’s complaint because it did not state a claim the court could recognize, but allowed him to amend. The court later extended the deadline for Standley to file an amended complaint until September 15, 2023.
Standley did not file the amended complaint. The court had warned that failing to amend on time would result in dismissal without further notice.
The court dismissed the action with prejudice because Standley failed to amend despite the opportunity and warning. Judge P. Casey Pitts stated that Standley may move to reopen the action under Rules 59 or 60 if he believes he can state a claim the court can recognize.
The detailed version
- Standley v. Clifton · No. 5:23-cv-00509
- Pitts
- Oct. 23, 2023
Background
On June 30, 2023, the court dismissed Cameron Standley’s original complaint because it failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. The court gave Standley permission to file an amended complaint. At Standley’s request, the court extended the deadline to September 15, 2023, and warned that failing to file the amended complaint on time would result in dismissal of the action without further notice.
What the Court Decided
The court found that Standley had not filed an amended complaint despite having an opportunity to do so and receiving a warning about the consequences. The court dismissed the action with prejudice, meaning the dismissal bars refiling the action in its current form. The opinion does not separately decide the merits of any amended claims because no amended complaint was filed.
Result
The action was dismissed with prejudice. The court stated that, if Standley believes he can state a cognizable claim, he may move to reopen the action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 or 60. The order was signed by United States District Judge P. Casey Pitts.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.