Hall v. Barry
- Pitts
- 5:23-cv-02999
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Hall v. Barry, Judge Pitts dismissed the action with prejudice after Hall failed to file an amended complaint.
Damien Lashon Hall, the plaintiff, is affected by the dismissal of his action against G. Barry.
What happened
In Hall v. Barry, the court had dismissed Damien Lashon Hall’s original complaint because it did not state a legally recognizable claim and allowed him to amend it. The amended complaint was due September 4, 2023, but Hall did not file one.
The court had warned that failing to amend on time would lead to dismissal without further notice. Hall did not amend despite that opportunity and warning.
Judge Pitts dismissed the action with prejudice. The order says Hall may move to reopen the action under Rules 59 or 60 if he believes he can state a legally recognizable claim.
The detailed version
- Hall v. Barry · No. 5:23-cv-02999
- Pitts
- Mar. 1, 2024
Background
On July 24, 2023, the court dismissed Damien Lashon Hall’s original complaint because it failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. The court granted Hall leave to file an amended complaint and warned that failing to do so within the required time would result in dismissal without further notice.
The amended complaint was due September 4, 2023. The opinion states that Hall had not filed it.
Ruling
Because Hall failed to amend despite having an opportunity and a warning about the consequences, the court dismissed the action with prejudice. The order cites a Ninth Circuit decision recognizing that dismissal is proper when a plaintiff fails to amend after being given an opportunity to do so.
The order also states that, if Hall believes he can state a cognizable claim, he may move to reopen the action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 or 60.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.