Coxon v. Attorney General of the United States
- James Donato
- 3:21-cv-09384
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Coxon v. Attorney General, Judge Donato dismissed Benjamin Coxon’s case without prejudice after he failed to amend a deficient complaint.
Benjamin Coxon’s case was dismissed without prejudice after he failed to file an amended complaint or respond to the magistrate judge’s recommendation; the named defendants were not required to litigate the complaint further in this case.
What happened
Benjamin Coxon, representing himself, sued the Attorney General of the United States, “a United States Attorney,” and “a United States District Court.” The court had allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee and sent his complaint for legal screening.
A magistrate judge found that the complaint was deficient, largely incomprehensible, and did not state a viable claim. Coxon was given a deadline to file an amended complaint, but he did not do so and did not object to the recommendation that the case be dismissed.
Judge Donato independently reviewed the matter, adopted the recommendation, and dismissed the case without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for lack of prosecution. This means the order did not bar refiling, although the opinion does not discuss any later filing.
The detailed version
- Coxon v. Attorney General of the United States · No. 3:21-cv-09384
- James Donato
- Dec. 13, 2023
Background
Benjamin Coxon filed the action without a lawyer against the Attorney General of the United States, “a United States Attorney,” and “a United States District Court.” The court granted Coxon’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee.
Screening and Recommendation
Because Coxon was proceeding without paying the filing fee, a magistrate judge screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The screening order found that the complaint was “incomprehensible in almost every respect” and failed to state a viable claim for relief. The magistrate judge gave Coxon until July 14, 2023, to file an amended complaint correcting the identified deficiencies.
Coxon did not file an amended complaint by the deadline. On July 17, 2023, the magistrate judge issued a report recommending dismissal for the reasons stated in the screening order. Coxon did not object to the recommendation or file another response before the objection period expired.
Ruling
Judge Donato independently reviewed the complaint and determined that it remained deficient for the reasons stated in the screening order. The court concluded that dismissal for lack of prosecution was appropriate because Coxon had not filed an amended complaint by the deadline. The court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed the case without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.