Glasper v. City Of Oakland
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:23-cv-04699
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Glasper v. City of Oakland, Judge Gilliam dismissed the case without prejudice after Glasper failed to prosecute it.
Timothy B. Glasper’s case against the City of Oakland, Oakland Public Works Department, Richard Battersby, Tyree Jackson, and Arthur Watson was dismissed without prejudice; judgment was entered in favor of the defendants.
What happened
Timothy B. Glasper sued the City of Oakland and other defendants, alleging workplace harassment and retaliation connected to his union activities. He asserted federal and California-law claims.
After the defendants moved to dismiss, Glasper did not file a response. He also did not respond to the court’s order asking why the case should not be dismissed, did not file a required case-management statement on time, and otherwise did not communicate with the court after removal.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The clerk was ordered to enter judgment for the defendants and close the case.
The detailed version
- Glasper v. City Of Oakland · No. 4:23-cv-04699
- Haywood Gilliam
- Jan. 26, 2024
Background
Timothy B. Glasper filed the case in Alameda County Superior Court, alleging workplace harassment and retaliation by the defendants. He alleged that the Public Works Department of Oakland had retaliated against him beginning in 2015 because of his participation in union activities. His complaint asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, Title VI, Title VII, and various California statutes.
The defendants removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss the complaint. Glasper was representing himself. He did not oppose the motion by the filing deadline. The court then ordered him to explain why the motion should not be granted or, alternatively, why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Glasper did not respond to that order. He also did not timely file a required case-management statement and, other than filing a declination of magistrate-judge jurisdiction, did not communicate with the court after removal.
Court’s analysis
The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which allows dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute a case or comply with a court order. It considered five factors: the public interest in resolving cases promptly, the court’s need to manage its docket, the risk of prejudice to defendants, whether less severe measures could work, and the public policy favoring decisions on the merits.
The court found that the first four factors supported dismissal. Glasper’s repeated failure to respond delayed the case, interfered with docket management, provided no explanation for his noncompliance, and continued even after the court warned that dismissal was possible. The court found that the fifth factor weighed against dismissal because public policy favors decisions on the merits, but concluded that the factors overall supported dismissal.
Ruling
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). The court ordered the clerk to enter judgment in favor of the defendants and close the case. The opinion resolved the case based on Glasper’s failure to prosecute and did not decide the merits of his workplace-related claims or the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.